Home Agencies

Agencies

Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization

Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization


What is the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization?

Headquartered in Redondo Beach, California, The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization is an independent entity dedicated to prevented asbestos-related cancers through the delivery of educational resources and impacting legislation. Founded by Doug Larkin and Linda Reinstein in April of 2004, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization is regarded as the only asbestos victims’ organization currently functioning in the United States. The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization works to implement stringent regulations for all asbestos containing materials in the nation, including children toys, manufacturing products and construction materials. 

The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization seeks to provide global asbestos victims and concerned residents/citizens a shared voice to raise public awareness with regards to the dangers of asbestos exposure. The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization mission includes bolstering global advocacy and advancing asbestos prevention, awareness, treatment, early detection and resources for all asbestos-related cancers, medical conditions and diseases (such as malignant mesothelioma cancer). 

The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization: Goals

The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization’s Goals include the following: 

• The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization aims to educate the general public and medical community with regards to all asbestos related conditions

• The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization wants to unite all asbestos victims; the organization wants to create a community for all asbestos-disease sufferers. This community creates a foundation of support for all victims of asbestos-related medical conditions.

• The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization bolsters support research to secure early detection of asbestos-related conditions. Research is the key to prevention and cure; early detection is necessary to promote prevention and convalescence efforts. 

• An ambitious goal of The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization wishes to ban the use of asbestos in the United States. 

The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization has stated, several times, that it will not be influenced by outside entities or sources (such as drug companies) or law firms that are involved with the manufacturing or use of asbestos.  

 

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health


What is The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)?

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is a federal agency of the United States Government responsible for making recommendations and conducting research for the prevention of work-related illnesses and injuries. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is a fundamental part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—a sub agency of the United States’ Department of Health and Human Services. 

Headquartered in Washington, D.C., The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is a professionally diverse organization that staffs over 1,5000 people, all of whom represent a wide range of disciplines, including medicine, safety, psychology, industrial hygiene, engineering, statistics and chemistry. 

Formally signed by President Richard M. Nixon on December 29th of 1970, The Occupational Safety and Health Act was the piece of legislation responsible for creating both the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) was created to help ensure healthful and safe working conditions by providing educational resources, information, research and training to the field of occupational safety and health. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) provides national leadership to impede instances of work-related injuries, disabilities, illness and deaths. The agency attempts to curb these unfortunate instances by conducting scientific research, gathering information and translating the knowledge gathered into services and products. 

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH): Strategic Goals

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) implements a strategic plan for allocating resources and meeting institutional goals. In general, the agency has three goals:

• The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) wants to conduct research for the reduction of work-related injuries and illnesses

• The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) aims to promote healthy and safe workplaces through recommendations, capacity building and interventions

• The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) aims to enhance global workplace safety and health by collaborating with international government bodies

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s (NIOSH) goals are supported by the agency’s portfolio. This publication subcategorizes the agency’s initiatives into 8 groups, each of which represent industrial sectors. The program then further subdivides these efforts into 24 cross sections. 

Dissimilar to its brother organization (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration), The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is not a regulatory body. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) does not issue safety and health standards that are enforced under U.S. law. Rather, the agency’s authority derived from the Occupational Safety and Health Act is to develop suggestions for health and safety standards, to develop information concerning the safe levels of exposure to toxic materials, and to conduct research on health problems and new safety practices. The agency may also conduct on-site probes to determine the toxicity levels of materials applied in workplaces. 

 

ATSDR

ATSDR


What is the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry?

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is a federal public health organization that lies within the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) focuses primarily on controlling human health risks associated with exposure to dangerous chemicals/substances. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) works intricately with other states, local and federal bodies, as well as healthcare providers, local communities and tribal governments. The mission of the agency, as stated by the agency itself, is to “Serve the public through responsible public health rolls on promoting health and safe environments and prevent harmful exposure to dangerous materials.” 

Created in 195, The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) was created as a non-regulatory advisory agency by the Superfund legislation. Although The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is an independent operating unit within the Department of Health and human Services, another agency (primarily the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) will perform the bulk of the agency’s administrative functions. The director of The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) will serve as the body’s administrator. Moreover, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) utilizes a joint Office of the Director with the National center for Environmental Health.

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) headquarters are currently located in Atlanta, Georgia. In 2010, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) utilized an operating budget of approximately 77 million dollars; The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has an employee base of approximately 300 people. 

Basic Overview:

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is the head agency within the United States Public Health Service with regards to the effects of dangerous substances on the human population. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is responsible for assessing the nature and presence of hazardous materials at particular Superfund sites. Moreover, the agency helps prevent or reduce further exposure or illnesses that result from asbestos exposure. 

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) functions include: health consultation regarding specific hazardous substances, health assessments of hazardous waste sites, response to emergency releases of hazardous substances, health surveillance and registries, information development and dissemination, applied research in support of public health assessments and training and education with regards to hazardous substances. Furthermore, The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) also constructs and delivers toxicological profiles for all hazardous substances that are represented on the National Priorities List site.

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s (ATSDR): Goals

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) lists the following seven goals:

1. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) aims to protect the general public from an assortment of toxic and hazardous exposures.

2. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) wants to promote the creation of healthy environments throughout the United States.

3. The agency wants to advance the science of environmental public health.

4. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) supports the practice of environmental health in the United States.

5. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) wants to educate partners, the general public, and policy makers with regards to environmental health risks and the protective measures implement to curb exposure to hazardous materials.

6. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) wishes to promote environmental justice and reduce health disparities connected to environmental exposure to hazardous or toxic materials

7. The agency provides scientific and technical expertise to promote and advance the public health practice

Dissimilar to the Environmental Protection Action, The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is simply an advisory or non-regulatory governmental agency. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) conducts research on the impact of exposure to waste sites and other hazardous materials to provide recommendations and information to local and federal agencies, interested parties and the general community. That being said, The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is not involved in the cleanup of these neither dangerous areas, nor can the agency fund or provide for medical treatment to any individual who is exposed to such hazardous wastes. 

Programs Instituted by the ATSDR:

One of the primary responsibilities of The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is to conduct public health assessments and coordinate health consultations with the general public. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) conducts these assessments for all proposed or current sites on the Superfund list. (The superfund list states all heavily polluted locations that require a long-term response for the clean-up of hazardous materials.) The general purpose for these assessments is to evaluate whether contaminated substances at a site impose a significant health risk to the general population. If this occurs, The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) will issue recommendations to the residing state government to limit or halt exposure to said substances. 

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) also conducts health consultations, typically in response to requests from the Environmental Protection agency and local government bodies. These consultations examine specific health questions, including the health effects of exposure to specific chemicals. Consultations are limited in scope when compared to public health assessments. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) will also conduct health consultations and public health assessments in response to petitions filed by the general public. To conduct a health assessment and/or consultation, The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) utilizes its own scientists to provide technical assistance to local health departments. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has issued in excess of 200 public health assessments in the calendar year of 2010 and provides approximately 1,000 health consultations every year. 

When The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) investigates a dangerous site, the agency will examine health date, environmental data and information derived from community members concerning how the site affects the public’s quality of life. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) does not typically collect its own environmental data; the bulk of data is collected by partner organizations, such as the Environmental Protection Agency. Accrued environmental data offers information with regards to the amount of contamination and possible ways the public could be exposed to the chemical or hazardous substances on the site. The health data portion of the project provides information concerning rates of disease, illness and death rates in a local community. Because The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is an advisory body, conclusions rendered by its health consultations and health assessments are typically offered in the form of recommendations to the national environmental and health agencies (Environmental Protection Agency) and various state agencies. 

Another major responsibility of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) requires the agency to produce toxicological profiles for the most prolific substances found at various Superfund sites. These profiles summarize crucial studies on the chemical’s side effects. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) possesses a toxicological lab that coordinates and conducts research concerning the effects of toxic substances on human health. 

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) maintains a comprehensive registry, detailing all persons who have been exposed to specific toxic particles or substances. The list also reveals all people who have been diagnosed with particular cancers. However, participation in these registries is 100% voluntary and personal information and individual data is held private. Information on these lists is utilized by epidemiologists and other scientists to research the long-term health factors for illness. These lists also aid doctors in the diagnosis of certain health conditions. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) will use these lists to also contact registered patients or individuals to inform them of important health information. 

 

United States Consumer Product Safety Commission

United States Consumer Product Safety Commission

 


What is the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission? (CPSC)

Created in 1972, The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is an independent government agency of the United States Federal Government. The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) was created through the Consumer Product Safety Act; the primary goal of the organization is to fight against unreasonable risks of pain and injuries associated with consumer products in the United States. 

The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is an independent agency that does not report to any other agency or department within the federal government. The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is typically headed by three commissioners who are each individually nominated by the President of the United States; once nominated, the commissioner must be confirmed by the United States Senate for a staggered seven year term. Each commissioner will set policy for The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Currently, The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has five acting commissioners. 

The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is located in Bethesda, Maryland and operates with approximately 500 government employees. 

The general mission of The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is to protect the general public from unreasonable risks of death or injury from thousands of types of consumer products listed under the agency’s jurisdiction. The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is committed to protecting the general public—and their families—from consumer products that pose an electrical, chemical, fire or mechanical hazard that can perpetuate diseases or cause injuries. The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) works to ensure the safety of consumer products—such as cigarette lighters, power tools, cribs and household chemicals—that contribute to a large percentage of injuries and deaths associated with consumer products over the past three decades. 

Scope of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC):

The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has the power to regulate the manufacture and/or sale of more than 9 different consumer products (including all-terrain vehicles, baby cribs, swimming pools and barbeque grills). The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in general, is a regulator of consumer products. A product not under jurisdiction of The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) includes those specifically named by statute or law as under the jurisdictional authority of other federal bodies. For instance, an automobile is regulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, drugs are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and guns are regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Within educational and scientific communities, there is a growing population that feels these regulatory actions have hampered effective or legitimate scientific research. 

The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) fulfills its general mission by banning hazardous consumer products, researching potential dangers associated with consumer products and issuing recalls of consumer products that are already on the market. The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) will lean about unsafe products in a variety of ways. The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) maintains a consumer website and customer hot line where consumers can report concerns with regards about unsafe products or injuries associated with consumer products. The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) will also operate the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System which is a network of roughly 100 hospitals, each with 24-hour emergency rooms. This networks collects data with regards to consumer product related injuries; this information is used to general national estimates. 

 

W.R. Grace and Company

W.R. Grace and Company


What is the W.R. Grace and Company?

Headquartered in Columbia, Maryland, the W.R. Grace and Company is a chemical conglomerate, comprised of two primary divisions: Performance Chemicals and Davison Chemicals. The Davison unit of the W.R. Grace and Company is responsible for making chemical catalysts, silica-based products and refining catalysts that enable other entities to make products from refined crude oil. The Performance Chemicals unit of the W.R. Grace and Company makes concrete and cement additives, packaging sealants and fireproofing chemicals. Customers of this unit include: construction firms, chemical companies and oil refiners. 

The W.R. Grace and Company describes their operations as the premiere specialty materials and chemicals company in the world. The W.R. Grace and Company employs more than 6,500 employees in over 40 international offices throughout the world. The company boasts annual sales of roughly 2.6 billion dollars. The company, under ‘GRA’, trades on the New York Stock Exchange, where it has been listed since 1953.

Products and Subsidiaries of the W.R. Grace and Company:

Products and subsidiaries associated with the W.R. Grace and Company include: 

• The Grace division produces:

o Silica products

o Industrial catalysts (IE Raney nickel)

• The Grace Performance Chemical Division:

o Assortment of Grace Construction Products

§ Concrete Pigments

§ Air and Vapor barriers

§ Concrete fibers, concrete admixtures and grinding aids

§ Fireproofing materials

§ Structural, waterproofing membranes and bituminous materials

o Residential Building Materials

§ Flashings for doors, windows, decks and roof detail areas and an assortment of roofing membranes

§ Darex, including closures, coatings and sealants for canned foods and soft drink cans

The W.R. Grace and Company, through the production of the above products, has been involved in several controversial incidents of proven and alleged corporate crimes, including exposing residents of entire towns—as well as their workforce—to asbestos fibers. These contamination cases, most notably, took place in Troy and Libby, Montana. 

Asbestos Products Produced by the W.R. Grace and Company:

Several of the asbestos-containing materials manufactured by the W.R. Grace and Company were originally intended to be used in the construction industry. Aside from special building materials, asbestos-containing materials manufactured by the W.R. Grace and Company also included plaster, fireproofing materials, additives for cement and roofing materials. 

The majority of the products the W.R. Grace and Company produced were meant to be exported, primarily to take advantage of the corporation’s wide-ranging interests. The W.R. Grace and Company bought and sold several businesses, ranging from retail outlets, banks, airlines, restaurants, and wholesale book distributors. Examples of asbestos-containing materials manufactured by the W.R. Grace and Company include:

§ Ex Tex

§ Econo-white

§ Monokote Cement

§ High Temperature Insulating Cement

§ Zono-Coustic

§ Zonolite Fireproofing

§ Perltex Super-40 Perlite

§ Perltex Spray Surfacer

§ Zonolite Plaster

§ Zonolite Cement

§ Z-tex

§ Zonolite Spra-Tex

§ Zonolite Accoustical Plaster or Plastics

The W.R. Grace and Company and Asbestos: 

Although the W.R. Grace and Company does not currently make asbestos-based products, the corporation has faced more than 270,000 asbestos-related suits. More than half of these asbestos lawsuits have been dismissed our settled out of court—approximately 120,000 asbestos lawsuits remain pending. 

Asbestos injury claims doubled in 2000; because of this, the W.R. Grace and Company was forced to file for bankruptcy protection a year afterwards. The United States department of Justice claimed that the W.R. Grace and Company transferred between 4 to 5 billion dollars to sister and daughter companies that it had recently acquired before the bankruptcy filing. The attorneys for the Justice department claimed that this financial maneuver was a fraudulent transfer of funds that was initiated to protect the W.R. Grace and Company from asbestos suits. Coordinating bankruptcy courts ordered each company to return the transferred funds. 

In 2005, the United States Department of Justice filed a criminal action against the W.R. Grace and Company. In February of the same year, the department announced that a grand jury in the state of Montana formally indicted the W.R. Grace and Company—along with seven Grace Executives—for knowingly putting residents of Libby, Montana at risk of asbestos exposure. In addition to exposure, the W.R. Grace and Company was charged with concealing information regarding the health effects of its asbestos mining initiatives. According to the federal indictment, the W.R. Grace and Company and its executives, attempted to conceal information—as far back as the 70’s—concerning the adverse health effects of the corporation’s vermiculite mining operations and their distribution of vermiculite in Libby Montana. The W.R. Grace and Company was also accused of obstructing the federal government’s cleanup efforts in Libby. Currently, according to the charges, roughly 1,200 residents of Libby, Montana have been formally identified as suffering from some sort of asbestos-related disease. 

The formal criminal trial commenced in February of 2009, following years of pretrial hearings, some of which were heard in the United States Supreme Court. In May of the same year, the W.R. Grace and Company was acquitted of knowingly placing the people of Libby, Montana at harm of asbestos exposure. The chairman, president and CEO of the W.R. Grace and Company (Fred Festa) claimed that the company worked hard to keep the operations in direct compliance with state and federal asbestos laws. In turn, government lawyers claimed that the W.R. Grace and Company was responsible for an unparalleled asbestos case, where a whole community was sickened or killed by environmental crimes. 

In addition to asbestos suits, The W.R. Grace and Company has a long history of environmental crimes; these crimes were the basis for a series of non-fiction books, most notably “A Civil Action” which later turned into a popular motion picture. 

The W.R. Grace Company is regarded as one of the largest asbestos produces in American history. In 1963, the company purchased hundreds of vermiculite asbestos mines and a processing plant in Libby, Montana–these mines maintained functionality until 1990. Vermiculite is a naturally-occurring mineral that is mined from raw ore deposits. The mining method used for vermiculite is very similar to asbestos mining practices. 

In Libby, Montana, the W.R. Grace and Company employed up to 200 people to produce over 200,000 tons of vermiculite a year. These mines were eventually shut down in 1990 after large amounts of airborne asbestos fibers were discovered. This discovery opened floodgates; the exorbitant levels of airborne asbestos fibers served as the dominant factor to explain the overwhelming number of residents in Libby, Montana diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases. Because of this link, the W.R. Grace and Company faced a steady stream of asbestos lawsuits. 

Vermiculite found in the mines was utilized for a number of common construction products. Unfortunately, these mines were a source of asbestos fibers, which of course, posed a significant health risk to any individual working or living in close proximity. The life expectancy of Libby residents precipitously dropped. More than 500 Libby residents died from asbestos exposures in the Grace mines and roughly 1,500 residents fell ill. 

As a result of the trial, the W.R. Grace and Company was required to pay the United States Federal Government over $54 million to compensate for cleanup costs related to the Libby mines. The mine was ruled to contaminate schools, residences and businesses in Libby, Montana. Approximately $6 million of the site was earmarked for mortality analyses and medical testing for residents of Libby, Montana who had developed an asbestos-related disease or who had passed away after the mining operations commenced. 

In June of 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency declared a Public health Emergency in Libby and Troy, Montana. Widespread asbestosis diagnoses among the residents of these communities were said to hundreds of times higher than the national average.  

What Should I Do If I am Exposed to Asbestos by the W.R. Grace & Company?

Individuals who worked at the W.R. Grace & Company vermiculite mines in Montana may have been exposed to asbestos filaments. When airborne asbestos is inhaled it sticks to the lining of the lungs. These human carcinogens eventually eat away at the body’s protective tissues, forming cancer or other asbestos-related diseases. Asbestos is directly related to malignant mesothelioma cancer, lung cancer and asbestosis. If asbestos-related materials or products from the W.R. Grace and Company have affected you or a loved one in the past please call (800)-515-2270 to speak with patient advocates to file claims and/or go over your options. 

 

Alabama Judicial Building

Alabama Judicial Building

 


What is the Alabama Judicial Building?

The building in Montgomery houses the Unified Judicial System, and the building is still referred to as the Heflin-Torbert Judicial Building.  It houses the Supreme Court of Alabama, the Court of Civil Appeals, the Court of Criminal Appeals, and the State Law and Supreme Court Library.  Tourists are known to admire the state building’s neoclassical architecture. 

Glassroth v. Moore

The famous “Ten Commandments Case” involved the Alabama Judicial Building after Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court installed a 2 ½ ton monument of the Ten Commandments without notifying any of the other justices. 

A group of lawyers sued Chief Justice Moore because they claimed their clients may not receive fair hearings because of Moore’s personal religious beliefs.  The lawyers claimed that Moore’s actions violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution which calls for a direct separation of church and state. 

The case concerning the Alabama Judicial Building was eventually brought forth in front of U.S District Court Judge Myron Thompson and received a huge amount of media attention.  Myron ordered the removal of what he called “a religious sanctuary within the walls of a courthouse,” and the case was appealed by Moore. 

The case was affirmed in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals on July 1, 2003.  Moore continued to refuse taking down the monument at the Alabama Judicial Building, and he was eventually suspended as Chief Justice.  The justices ordered that the monument be removed on August 27, 2003, and Moore was removed from office due to ethics violations in November of 2003. 

Alabama Judicial Building Information

You can reach the separate Courts at the phone numbers below:

Supreme Court: 334-229-0700

Court of Civil Appeals: 334-229-0733

Court of Criminal Appeals: 334-229-0578

Administrative Office: 334-954-5000

 

Parochial School

Parochial School

 

 

A parochial school is a private school that is maintained by a religious body.  Elementary and secondary schools are the most common types of these religiously oriented schools, but some colleges qualify as well. 

 

Catholic schools are the most common types throughout the United States, and there are currently about 7,000 catholic schools across the nation according to the National Catholic Educational Association.  However, any school that includes religion in its curriculum is considered a parochial school. 

 

The teaching of religion is only allowed in a private parochial school because of landmark cases that mainly occurred throughout the 20th century.  One of the most recent cases occurred in 2005, and some of these cases are described below. 

 

In 1948, McCollum v. Board of Education District 71 ruled that the use of a tax-supported school for the teaching of religion was unconstitutional.  The case occurred when people of differing faiths formed a group called the Champaign Council of Religious Education and offered voluntary religious education to students during regular school hours.  Students who did not wish to receive the education were sent to another part of the school. 

 

In 1962, Engel v. Vitale ruled that allowing a short prayer at the start of the school day that referenced God was unconstitutional.  The reference to God was nondenominational, but the fact that the New York school approved the prayer meant the school approved religion.  The case was particularly important because it was the first case that attempted to eliminate prayer from public schools completely. 

 

Abington School District v. Schempp came to trial because the school district in Pennsylvania made students read at least ten bible verses before school started and recite the Lord’s Prayer.  Students had the option to excuse themselves from the religious activities with a signed note from their parents, but the court still ruled the activities were unconstitutional because the school violated the establishment clause. 

 

Lemon v. Kurtzman was one of the most important cases concerning funding to a parochial school.  The case addressed statute in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island that offered financial support to non-public schools.  Ultimately, the Court found concluded that funding to a parochial school would entangle the government with religion. 

 

In 1992, Lee v. Weisman ruled that prayer at a public graduation ceremony was unconstitutional.  The case was brought to the Supreme Court when Daniel Weisman filed a temporary restraining order against a rabbi that was scheduled to deliver a nondenominational prayer at a graduation ceremony.  The restraining order was initially denied, but the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Weisman. 

 

One of the most recent cases involved the teaching of intelligent design versus evolution in public schools.  Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was brought to court because the school district required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before learning about evolution.  The statement concluded that Darwin’s theory was in fact a theory and still had gaps.  The statement then referred students to a textbook on intelligent design called Of Pandas and People.  The court eventually ruled in favor of science faculty members who thought the statements were unconstitutional. 

Iron Arrow Honor Society

Iron Arrow Honor Society

 


Iron Arrow Honor Society

The Iron Arrow Honor Society is an association based at the University of Miami. Founded in 1926 as an all-male organization, the Iron Arrow Honor Society had a sister organization for women from 1936 to 1966. In that year, the sister organization chose to end its affiliation with the Iron Arrow Honor Society.

In 1972, Title IX was passed by the United States Congress. The goal of this legislation was to end discrimination on the basis of women. Title IX stated that no educational institution or entity receiving federal funding was allowed to deny anyone admission on the basis of gender. In 1974, regulations were issued to standardize implementation of this law. In 1976, the University of Miami was notified by the federal government that the Iron Arrow Honor Society was in violation of the law and therefore could not receive money from the school.

The University of Miami asked the federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare for time to establish new membership protocols. The Department agreed as long as the Iron Arrow Honor Society performed its initiation ceremony off-campus. Formerly, this initiation took place on a mound located outside the student union building. The Iron Arrow Honor Society then filed a lawsuit against the University seeking an injunction that would prevent the school from moving the initiation ceremony.

The case was heard in Florida district court, which ruled in favor of the school. The Iron Arrow Honor Society appealed the verdict, which was then reversed. A series of rulings brought the case to the Supreme Court, which sent it back down for further review before issuing its final ruling. In the interim, the university informed the Iron Arrow Honor Society that it would not be permitted on campus regardless of the Supreme Court's ruling unless women were admitted into the organization.

In hearing the case for the final time, the Supreme Court had to consider the issue of whether it could issue a ruling in a case which seemed to have already reached a conclusion. The University argued that since their decision about the Iron Arrow Honor Society was already made, there was no point in a further Supreme Court ruling. In an appeals court hearing, a split opinion concluded that it was still possible for the courts to order the University to take additional actions, such as forcing the Iron Arrow Honor Society to quit using its name.

However, the Supreme Court declined to issue any such instructions, as did the courts below it. The case therefore was closed without further legal action. Two years later, the Iron Arrow Honor Society decided to allow women to join the organization. The University of Miami therefore permitted the Iron Arrow Honor Society to resume operation on campus. There have been no subsequent legal developments concerning the activities of the Iron Arrow Honor Society, which admits roughly 30 people a year.

 

The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry

The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry

 


The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry

 

The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry is an nonprofit organization founded in 1867 concerned with helping rural American families. The major focus of The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry is on issues related to agriculture. The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry describes itself as a non-political organization. There are four tiers of The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry, which operates on a community, county or district, state and national level. The organization regularly conducts fundraising activities to assist in the implementation of local projects.

 

The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry has been involved with a number of legislative and practical initiatives throughout its history. One of its current priorities is addressing problems with the Independent Patient Advisory Board, which is in charge of finding ways to reduce the cost of Medicare. The position of The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry is that this federal board has been granted excessive authority and is likely to result in the loss of rural jobs in the medical industry.

 

Another current priority of The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry is reforming the US Postal System. Currently, the US Postal System is experiencing financial difficulties primarily due to a large decrease in the amount of physical mail sent. The position of The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry is that immediate reforms are needed in the operation of the Postal Service, which is vital as both an employer in rural areas and a provider of mail to rural residents.

 

Another current priority of The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry is to agitate for open auctions of spectrum frequencies used for wireless technology. The position of The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry is that open auctions should be held soon by the Federal Communications Commission, which must also implement strict guidelines to avoid favoritism and ensure that the highest possible sale price is obtained. This is important to The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry, which is concerned with providing greater access to high-speed wireless technology to rural areas.

 

Another current priority of The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry concerns the regulation of pesticides used against mosquitoes and other flying insects, to control aquatic pests and weeds, and those used in the control of forest canopy pests. The passage of a new law amending the already in effect Clean Water Act has created requirements for compliance which many states will be unable to prepare for in time. It is the position of The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry that Congress must pass legislation to amend the Clean Water Act to protect farms from large fines.

National Collegiate Athletic Association

National Collegiate Athletic Association

 


National Collegiate Athletic Association

 

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (commonly abbreviated NCAA) is a private non-profit organization which organizes intercollegiate athletics in the United States and Canada. Founded in 1905, the National Collegiate Athletic Association has been involved in several controversial lawsuits.

 One major case involving the National Collegiate Athletic Association occurred in the 1984 Supreme Court case of NCAA v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Oklahoma. The case concerned the right of member universities of the NCAA to negotiate their own television contracts concerning the broadcast of college football games. In 1953, the National Collegiate Athletic Association created a Football Television Committee whose purpose was to negotiate the broadcast of collegiate football games. This committee restricted the number of games of each school which could be broadcast, as well as stipulating that the proceeds generated by advertising revenue during these broadcasts would be split between the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the colleges in question.

 

Due to dissatisfaction with the terms negotiated and imposed by the Football Television Committee, several major football programs formed their own alternative organization, named the College Football Association, which proceeded to negotiate a new contract for its member schools with the NBC television network. The National Collegiate Athletic Association announced in response that schools participating in this contract would face sanctions in all of their sports programs. As a result, the University of Oklahoma and the University of Georgia filed a lawsuit in Oklahoma district court with the purpose of obtaining an injunction preventing such punitive actions.

 

After a series of lower court hearings, the case was argued before the Supreme Court in March of 1984. A ruling was issued in June of that year in favor of the College Football Association. In its majority ruling, the court that the actions taken by the National Collegiate Athletic Association constituted restrained its member schools for reasons that were not reasonable and which violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. The National Collegiate Athletic Association argued in court that its actions were justifiable because they made college football programs more competitive. However, the Supreme Court ruled that this was not the case.

 

As a result of this ruling, the National Collegiate Athletic Association lost total control of television broadcast rights, allowing schools to negotiate fees for the broadcast of their games. An initial decline in revenue generated was soon reversed.

 

Another lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association concerning antitrust laws occurred in 2007, when several former student-athletes filed a lawsuit claiming that the organization's restrictions on athletes receiving full scholarships was a violation of the law. They argued that if this restriction was lifted, schools could be competitive in offering complete scholarships in athletes, benefitting both the students and the school programs. The court ruled in favor of the students, thereby placing an end to these restrictions. However, controversy is still widespread regarding the perceived unresponsiveness of the National Collegiate Athletic Association to member complaints.