Category: Texas

Introduction

Lobbyists play a big role in the American political system. To become a lobbyist, one must be an expert in a certain field in order to convince the elected decision-makers. Many organizations and companies across the United States hire lobbyists to promote their interests in governmental structures. In Texas, there are seven organizations that spend more than a million dollars on lobbyist compensation (Texas Ethics Commission report, 2003). According to the Texas Ethics Commission (2003), the second biggest interest group in Texas is Texas Utilities (TXU) that hired 55 lobbyists with an average compensation of $25, 364, which summed up to be $1,395,000. Later, the membership base varied as in 2007, TXU hired even more lobbyist for its takeover campaign.

Lobbyist Compensation in Texas

In 2007 the company had faced challenges associated with financial recession. Prior to that TXU generated a load of debt, which hindered its progress and made it a risky investment for the private equity. Hence, the company settled for the buyout. Many lawmakers, experts, and government officials argued that the buyout of TXU by the Energy Future Holdings Corp (EFH) will lead to the further accumulation of debt, which may affect gas prices. In order to outweigh the opposition, TXU launched a strong lobbying campaign by hiring 86 professionals with a $17 million sum of compensation.

The Texas Utilities lobbying campaign of 2007 gained public attention. It was massive in scale and it determined the outcome of the TXU takeover (LobbyWatch, 2007). One of the primary goals of the lobbying campaign was to avoid consumer and environmental restrictions imposed on the TXU and its buyout partners (LobbyWatch, 2007). Because the buyout plans were revealed to the public, the utility corporation had to increase its planned lobbying expenditure twice. The lobbying strategy entailed a media and advertising campaign, which constituted most of the costs spent on the lobby. As such, TXU-related lobbyist expenditures included $10,937,336 on media, $146,851 on food and beverages, $15,193 on entertainment and $18,401 on gifts (LobbyWatch, 2007). The total sum was $11,117,781 (LobbyWatch, 2007). Hence, the scale of the lobbying campaign was indeed large.

While it is easier to understand the media and advertisement expenses, the case of the 2007 lobbying campaign provides a valuable insight into the approaches that are utilized by lobbyists. As such, the $146,851 wining and dining expenditure can be analyzed in detail due to the report made by LobbyWatch (2007). The food and beverages expenses refer to the sum of the money lobbyists spent on dinners with government officials and lawmakers during their meetings.

Other than food and drinks, the meetings between lobbyists and lawmakers included entertainment. Total sum of this kind of expenditure was estimated to be $15,193 (LobbyWatch, 2007). Rudy Garza and Michael MacDougall who reported spending up to $1,000 apiece to give San Antonio Spurs tickets to Rep. Rene Oliveira and Chief of Staff J.J. Garza made some of the highest expenditures for entertainment (LobbyWatch, 2007). Other types of entertainment included tickets to Music Halls for representatives and their wives. Therefore, lobbying is not always argued to be fair practice as it favors legislators by providing them material benefits from the interest group.

Another type of expenditure involved in the lobbying process of TXU in 2007 was gifts. Although not all of the political presents were itemized, the total sum spent was $18,401 (LobbyWatch, 2007). Some of the gifts included things such as calendar bases, compensation for “deer processing” services for thirteen representatives who were deer hunters, and NCAA tickets (LobbyWatch, 2007). It can be argued whether gift-giving is considered ethical during the lobbying campaign. It does not directly affect the cases of representing the interest group, but it affects lawmakers and representatives indirectly and on the personal level, which resembles a bribe.

The lobbying campaign of the Texas Utilities in 2007 was comparably homogenous in its targets. As such, nearly 89 percent of people who received gifts from the TXU lobbyists were representatives of the legislative branch (LobbyWatch, 2007). The other 2 percent targeted the executive branch, while the remaining 9 percent were meant for the families and guests of the representatives (LobbyWatch, 2007). The strategy selected by TXU lobbyists was proven effective as the corporation has managed to avoid the undesired restrictions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, during the 2000s Texas Utilities has become the main retail electricity provider in the state of Texas. In addition, the company is known for its extensive use of lobbying throughout the 2000s. As such, in 2003 it had the second-largest lobbying expenditure, while in 2007 it spent $17 million on the same matters. Despite its borderline controversial methods, the lobbying strategy by TXU was successful as it prevented the unwanted consumer and environmental restrictions imposed on TXU and its partners, which allowed for the subsequent buyout.

References

LobbyWatch. (2007) TXU’s Takeover Lobby Cost About $17 Million.

Texas Ethics Commission (2003). Lobbyist registration reports. Texas Ethics Commission.

TXU (2022) About us. Texas Utilities.

Texas and Florida: Structure of State Government

Even though the U.S. Constitution defines general principles for legal standards and regulations across the United States, local governments are unique and may share very few common elements. On the one hand, the looseness of the specified structure allows local governments impressive flexibility when making economic, financial, and political decisions. On the other hand, it creates a gap that may divide the states. Therefore, a closer look at the unique characteristics of U.S. state governments is required. Using Texas and Florida as examples, differences in the length of terms, the structures of governments, etc., may be discussed, which can help adjust the general legal principles by which the U.S. legal system is guided to state-specific conditions.

Government Structure: Discussion

The government structure helps determine the functional role of each county government in the entire system of the state and identify the legal responsibilities of each agent, as well as delineating the legal system of the state in general. Thus, a closer look at the subject matter will assist in discovering the benefits and disadvantages of each system. Furthermore, the reasons for the specified discrepancies between government structures will be determined. The limitations that the Texas Constitution imposes on lawmakers, especially as far as general taxation and property taxes, in particular, are concerned, should be viewed as one of the primary differences between the Texas and Florida governments. There is a general propensity for the Texas government to set more limitations on its state authorities, which is not a tendency that Florida shares (“State & Local Government”).

Texas and Florida state government makeup

The state structure of Texas is bicameral, which is very similar to most of the American states (Texas House of Representatives). Texas’s bicameral structure incorporates a lower and an upper house (i.e., the House of Representatives and the Senate). The Senate is headed by the lieutenant governor, while the speaker of the house is at the helm of the House of Representatives (Texas House of Representatives).

Florida’s government makeup is also based on a bicameral system (The Florida Senate “About the Legislature”). One of the distinctive characteristics of Florida’s government makeup is the principle of redistricting, which provides equal legislative power to all citizens of Florida no matter in what county they reside. In addition, the Constitution of Florida also implies a three-branch system of power, that is, the presence of legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

How Texas and Florida structure their governments

Because of differences in their state constitutions, Texas and Florida structure their governments in a slightly different way. Even though the obligatory triad of legislative, executive, and judicial powers is present in the body of each state’s government, there are certain dissimilarities in how this concept is implemented. By scrutinizing some of the major differences, the nature of each state’s government can be discerned.

Comparing and Contrasting the Structures of Government

Although the governments of both Texas and Florida are based on the structure suggested by the U.S. Constitution, certain details in their makeup create a distinction that helps adjust state regulations to the unique environment in which they exist.

Texas and Florida: Leadership Structure

In Florida, the Governor represents the executive power of the state. However, unlike in Texas, in Florida, there is a position called the Lieutenant Governor. This member of the state government provides assistance to the Governor. The cooperation between the two allows for the delegation of powers from the Governor to the Lieutenant Governor (The Florida Senate “Senator Tom Lee”). The management of the Florida state budget should also be regarded as one of the essential responsibilities of the Governor.

The approach used in Texas is slightly different. While the Governor also represents the executive power of the state, the state Governor is assisted by the Chief Deputy Executive Commissioner rather than a Lieutenant Governor.

Texas and Florida: The Amount of Power. Description

As the description provided above shows, there are significant differences in the extent to which state authorities can exercise their influence over crucial legal changes within the two states. In Florida, the Governor is entitled to substantial power as the representative of the executive power, whereas in Texas, the Governor’s authority is reduced to a considerable extent due to the unique characteristics of the state’s legal standards, economy, and history.

Governors

Representing the executive branch of state power, Florida governors enforce the law within the state. In Florida, the governor chairs the cabinet and has a certain power in rulemaking, though the authority to introduce changes to the state rules and regulations is a recent change. In fact, the extent of Florida governors’ influence was expanded in 2012 (The Florida Senate “Senator Tom Lee”). These alterations created opportunities to enhance the economic growth within the state, boosting entrepreneurship and encouraging continuous improvement in the realm of business and the economy (The Florida Senate “Senator Tom Lee”).

This approach toward establishing and sustaining legislative power is slightly different from the one that is accepted in Texas. The boundaries of the power of Texan legislators are defined based on the principles of redistricting, which implies equal power for all residents of the state. As a result, districts with a comparatively low density of citizens or remote locations can avoid being underrepresented. (The Florida Senate “Senator Tom Lee”).

State legislators

Texas and Florida: Comparing and Contrasting Power

Although the government of both states is modeled after the traditional concept of separation of powers (i.e., legislative, executive, and judicial), legislative bodies are given much more authority in Texas than in Florida. This can be explained by the fact that the role of government is slightly different in Texas than in any other U.S. state, including Florida. For instance, changes to the existing taxation system cannot be made without a referendum since the Texas Constitution places an especially powerful emphasis on the needs of the farming industry as one of the primary sources of state income (Health and Human Services Commission). This is necessarily different from the situation in Florida, where the state GDP does not depend so heavily on agriculture (The Florida Senate “Redistricting Plan”).

In contrast to Texas, where lawmakers are entitled to a significant amount of freedom, lawmakers in Florida have only recently begun to gain tighter control over legislative processes within the state (The Florida Senate “Redistricting Plan”). This is due to the fact that Florida has been experiencing changes in its legal structure. In Miami-Dade, which is one of the largest counties, a small number of legislators are bound to gain greater power over the legislation process (Clark). However, this alteration to the state legislative system has only affected one county and requires further support to be established at a statewide level (Clark).

Works Cited

Clark, Kristen M. “For Miami-Dade Lawmakers in New Roles of Influence, ‘There’s Strength in Peace.’” Miami Herald. 2016. Web.

The Florida Senate. “About the Legislature.” FlSenate. n.d., Web.

—. “Redistricting Plan H000C9065.” FlSenate. 2015. Web.

—. “Senator Tom Lee Files Three Proposed Amendments to Florida’s Constitution.” FlSenate. Web.

“State & Local Government.” TheWhitheouse. n.d., Web.

Texas House of Representatives. “Frequently Asked Questions.” HouseTexas. n.d., Web.

Health and Human Services Commission. “Revised Texas Promoting Independence Plan.” HHS. Texas. Web.

Facts: The defendant in this case, Gregory L. Johnson, participated in demonstrations that some Americans had organized to protest the policies of some Dallas-based corporations, and the Reagan administration in general.

The demonstrations were held at the same time as the 1984 Republican Convention that was also held in Dallas. The demonstrators marched the city of Dallas with the event culminating in the respondent’s public flag desecration. As he desecrated the flag, no threatening was done on anyone and no physical injuries occurred. However, the desecration of the flag offended a number of witnesses.

Procedural

History: The trial court found the defendant guilty of violating a Texas statute by desecrating a venerated object. The decision was affirmed by the State Court of Appeals. The defendant appealed in the Court of Criminal Appeals in Texas.

Issue: Did the desecration of the flag by the defendant amount to expressive conduct, permitting the respondent to enjoy First Amendment protection? Did flag preservation as a nationhood symbol justify the respondent’s conviction?

Rule

The Court of Criminal Appeals in Texas reversed the earlier ruling that Johnson was guilty of desecrating a venerated object. The State of Texas agreed that the conduct of the respondent was expressive in nature. The flag was burned during a political demonstration, which proved its expressive nature. The First Amendment protects such rights.

The court also held that the restriction of the defendant’s expression by the state was content-based. Therefore, the preservation of the flag as a symbolic object by the state must be exactly scrutinized.

The State is interested in taking proper care of the flag, but this does not require the state to criminally punish protesting people who desecrate the flag. Therefore, the interest of the state in the preservation of the flag as a nationhood symbol does not warrant the conviction of the respondent because it is inconsistent with the Constitution’s First Amendment.

Analysis

The fact that the respondent burned the flag as a political event was taking place in Texas led to the confirmation that his action was expressive in nature. The defendant burned the flag solely to express a political message and thus his action was protected by the First Amendment.

Additionally, the court decided that, because the burning of the flag did not in any way breach the peace of the state, the state’s interest in preserving the flag’s image as a nationhood symbol could not warrant criminal punishment of the respondent.

Conclusion

Yes, flag desecration done as part of a demonstration that is held on the same day as a political event amounts to expressive conduct. The First Amendment allows such conduct.

No, the state is interested in ensuring the flag is preserved as a nationhood symbol but this does not mean that it should punish demonstrators who desecrate the flag without jeopardizing the state’s peace. Additionally, there was another statute on breaches of peace, which could have been utilized in preserving the state’s peace without criminally punishing the respondent.

This case drew battle lines between Congressmen who advocated for Constitutional amendment to allow restraints on desecration of flags and Congressmen who thought that the issue needed to be solved with new legislation, and without amending the Constitution.

Works Cited

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 109 S. Ct. 2533, 105 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1989)

Constitutional Issue and Details of the Case

The constitutional issue that I am going to discussed is based on the case of a Caucasian female, Abigail Fisher. She applied for the University of Texas (UT), and it is important to mention that the was not a part of the top ten percent of the class, so she had to strive for admission with other undergraduates who also were in the top ten percent of their classes (Fisher v. Univ. of TX at Austin, 2013). Nonetheless, the UT disregarded Fisher’s submission.

Subsequently, Fisher claimed that the UT dismissed her application based on her race and decided to file a suit against the university. Fisher supported her claim by the fact that the equal protection clause was violated (being an integral part of the Fourteenth Amendment) (Fisher v. Univ. of TX at Austin, 2013). In response, the UT claimed that their strategy was to guarantee diversity and did not agree that they violated any of Fisher’s rights. The district court’s and the Court of Appeals’ decisions were in favor of the UT. Taking that into account, Fisher decided to file another complaint and challenge the decision of the Court of Appeals in the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

The Impact of the Key Arguments on the Major Parties Involved in the Case

The impact of this case on the criminal justice system is substantial due to the act of consideration of race. The judicial system was affected by the previous legal instances of coping with the admissions involving minorities (Collins & Ringhand, 2013). The overall decision was based on the standard investigation of the case and its acquiescence with the Fourteenth Amendment. In this case, the problem consisted in the fact that the Supreme Court had to identify if the policy served exclusively as an adjustment to the governmental interests. All the parties involved in the case concluded that if the policy was not compliant with the previous standards, the commission did not have the right to consider race to be one of the factors that influenced the process of admission (Collins & Ringhand, 2013). The issue of diversity impacted the ultimate decision of the Supreme Court and the judicial system in general. It was later claimed that the lower courts did not collect adequate evidence concerning the case and the decision was overturned.

The Influence of the Court Decision on the Criminal Justice Policy

This unique case caught the attention of the whole country and its impact on justice policy standards is evident. Automatic admissions were revised, and the University of Texas renewed its diversity strategy to fully comply with the legislation (Marion & Oliver, 2012). After all, high-performing students saved their right to gain admission based on the application process that involves the consideration of ethnic factors. At the same time, the criminal justice policy was successfully transformed, and the universities all over the country reviewed their admission policies.

The Effect of the Decision on Social Justice in the United States of America

The decision of the Supreme Court concerning Fisher’s lawsuit changed the way the “Top Ten” program was perceived. The problems of social justice inherent in the legal system of the United States were emphasized by Fisher’s case, and it allowed the plaintiff to win the fight for affirmative action (Gaines, 2014). Nonetheless, the outcomes of this decision are still considered to be unexpected as the principles of this program are rather flexible. The most important aspect of this case is the ability of the affirmative action supporters to keep the legacy of the UT race-based policy alive.

References

Collins, P. M., & Ringhand, L. A. (2013). Supreme Court confirmation hearings and constitutional change. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Fisher v. Univ. of TX at Austin, 570 U.S. (2013)

Gaines, L. K. (2014). Homeland security: A new criminal justice mandate. In S. L. Mallicoat & C. L. Gardiner (Eds.), Criminal justice policy (pp. 67-87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Marion, N. E., & Oliver, W. M. (2012). The public policy of crime and criminal justice (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Introduction

Both these cases deal with homosexual sodomy. The fundamental question that arouse was, in the context of Georgian laws outlawing anal sex, whether the rules applicable to anal sex by homosexual partners need also to be considered illegal when indulged in, by heterosexual partners.

In the case of Bowers v. Hardwick (478 U.S. 186 (1986), a policeman entered bedroom of Hardwick, the respondent, found him engaged in compromising oral sex act with another man and arrested him under Georgian sodomy laws.

Although the District Attorney dropped sodomy charges against him, Hardwick filed a civil rights action, claiming violation of fundamental rights to privacy and challenging the Constitutional validity of Georgia law which ruled that a person commits the offense of sodomy when he performs or permits performance of any sexual activity, expressly prohibited by law. According to this law, the maximum term in the event of proved guilt would range between 1-10 years in prison. (Howard Ball, The Supreme Court in the intimate lives of Americans: Fundamental rights versus State interest –The Balancing process: P.8 (Web).

In this case, after a lot of deliberations, his petition was turned down, since a strict interpretation of the right of privacy rights would not extend to wanton sexual independence, and again, sexual expressions through homosexual acts is contextually and legally different from sex acts carried out under the protective cloak of sanctity of marriage, family and progeny.

The facts of this case were that the police officers entered the bedroom of one of the respondents, John Geddes Lawrence, found him having anal sex with another man.

Both were arrested and produced before law. Their petitions for protection under due process laws of the 14^th Amendment were rejected and they were subjected to the process of law. Texas laws criminalize same sex sodomy, while it does not do the same regarding hetero-sexual sodomy. The law in this case is that, under Texas law, a person could be held guilty for only same sex sodomy, while under these laws, hetero-sexuals engaging in sodomy would not fall within the purview of crime.

However, the Courts in the case of Lawrence v. Texas considered the fact that there was an intrusion of privacy and breach of fundamental rights guaranteed under the US Constitution. This case became a landmark case in the realms of sodomy laws in US, and ushered in a more broadminded and liberal attitude towards same gender consensual sexual relationships between people. Many states have now deregulated sodomy in US, taking courage from this case.

It is seen that in US context, the laws governing sodomy is more a State aspect, rather than central issue. State laws are applicable to issues that arise in context of sodomy and related matters.

The writer does not agree with the Lawrence decision. In a delicate issue of this kind, involving unnatural or deviant behaviors, it is necessary to examine both side of the argument before seeking a just and acceptable solution.

Facts contradicting the Lawrence decision

The fact whether unnatural sexual act is performed through co-sanguinary partners, bestiality or anal penetration of same sex couples, through natural or mechanical means, does not rob the essential unnatural nature of the matter, in terms of the fact that it is used as abnormal, pleasure seeking method and not for the need for procreation or family structuring.

The idea of sexual cohabitation stems from the need to build and sustain human societies for future generations so that later generations could provide strength to social order and development. By using the sexual act for pervasive and pleasure-seeking means, in essence, the overriding need for procreation and building family bonds are being blatantly subrogated.

Further, norms provided by civilized societies and governments have to be adhered since it has been provided for the social welfare of the community as a whole. Specific individuals belonging to organized society need to conform to societal dictates cannot be treated as exceptions to general principle of law and be allowed to defy societal moorings for personal satisfaction, pleasure or male company.

In civilized society, much as people may feel otherwise, the license to practice legal sex can only be enforced through marriages. Although persons may cohabit without marriage, this does not have legal validity and enforceability. Children born through cohabitation may not have similar rights as natural progeny have.

One could argue that marriages could also be seen as a license for couples to indulge in sexual pleasures and may not be for procreation. However, the right whether to have, or not have children, are personal and individualized decision as seen in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut 405 US 438 (1972).

In this case, the Court invalidated the law seeking to ban the use of contraception in marital sex among married couples. The laws are more concerned about the need to ensure bedroom privacy in order to maintain the sanctity and inviolability of the institution of marriages rather than identify and punish seemingly social misdemeanors and transgressions by married couples. Moreover, it is also felt that the choice whether to have or delay children are highly individualistic decisions and personal choices and the state cannot transgress on this right.

The aspect is not one of privacy or intrusion, protection of fundamental rights or privileges. It is one of preserving morality, highest standards of ethics and puranitical character, and the need to preserve moral chastity in deed and actions. Though incest, bestiality, public orgies and other forms of deviant behavior may not be innately harmful to the performers or to society, it could be seen as condescension of society, to the lowest morass of depravity and total abortion of socially accepted values and cultures. It would become necessary for revolutionary social changes to rid society of its malaises and usher in a clean and sanitized social build up.

The physical act of cosanguinary sex, homosexuality or bestiality is not an evil. It is the thought process that initiates and facilitates it that is more dangerous to society. Thus, its perpetrators could be seen more as mentally debilitated or sick rather than physically in need of human company.

Unnatural sex of any form or manner, outside the institution of marriage, is deemed to be a criminal act and deserves to be condemned and punished. However, in the case of Eisenstadt v. Baird 405 U.S. 438 (1972), the Courts held that the law seeking to distribute condoms, outside use made by medical professional was invalidated. “Married couples were entitled to contraception under the Court’s Griswold decision. Withholding that right to single persons without a rational basis proved the fatal flaw.”

• There may be instances when minority same sex couples, mainly males, may be singled out for condemnation by a majority heterosexual jury, due to their personal sexual preferences. However, it is felt that personal preferences of Courts need not cloud the verdict and it is to be ensured that each case needs to be examined and decided on the merits of the case, and not any other considerations, factual or otherwise.
• Citizens of a free country are entitled to privacy in their bedrooms and it would be something ridiculous for law enforcers to encroach and intrude into one’s privacy in the bedroom. The right of privacy needs to ensure that citizens are protected during sexual activities in the inviolability of their homes.
• Society endows its citizens with a clear choice for seeking preferences, especially sexual ones. Therefore, a person’s sexual choices need not be an impediment to his social status or lifestyle. The privileges and rights available to heterosexual couples who seek anal satisfaction need also be meted out to homosexual partners
• Constitutionally Guaranteed Fundamentally rights need to be not only in paper but also in conduct of law enforcers and the jury pronouncing them.

In retrospect, it could be said that the issue in this study deals with a fundamental aspect as to whether same sex persons (married or otherwise) should be allowed to practice their sexual preferences, just as heterosexual partners do. Or is their choice of partners a sign of deviation or something to be looked condescendingly upon.

The Lawrence case deals with same sex male sexuality. It deals with consensual adult partners who are both aware of the health and other risks entailed in such relationships.

A co-sanguinary relationship, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is outside the purview of Lawrence case since the latter dealt with same sex relationships. Similarly, in the case of bestiality, the question of mutual consent does not arise.

The differences between incest, bestiality and fellatio could be seen in terms of the intentions and conduct of the parties. The fact that it is an animal or a human being does not really matter.

Conclusion

It would be far-fetched to draw up hasty and undocumented facts regarding homosexuality since a lot would depend upon the merits of the case and the psyches of the parties involved.

The differences between homosexuality, incest, bestiality is only one of degree and intensity and not necessarily, absence of the evidence of unnatural behaviour. It is seen that with changing times, a lot of liberalism have come into the laws governing sexual moorings and code of conduct to be observed by consenting adults, but the fundamental truth remains that deviant behaviour, heterosexual or otherwise shall be viewed with disparagement.

Cited Works

Howard Ball, The Supreme Court in the intimate lives of Americans: Fundamental rights versus State interest –The Balancing process: P.8. 2008. Web.

William Van Alstyne : Closing the circle of constitution review from Griswold v. Connecticut to Roe v. Wade : An outline of a decision overruling ROE. 2008. Web.

Findlaw. (2002): Supreme Court of the United States: Lawrence et al v. Texas: P.5. 2008. Web.

US Supreme Court Media: OYEZ: Eisenstadt v. Baird: Conclusions. 2008. Web.

Checklist of All Marketable Assets

Below is the balance sheet of the hotshot trucking company located in Texas as of 25^th/11/2021, displaying the checklist of all current marketable assets as of the date.

Reviewing Texas’s Intestacy Statutes

According to Texas’s Estates Code, chapter 201, the law gives people the freedom to make a will that distributes their assets or property and wishes. A statutory formula is used to distribute the property if somebody dies intestate in Texas or dies without a will. The formula does not consider your wishes or circumstances when dealing with the property; it determines how the assets and property should be distributed to the beneficiaries (Kanapickiene et al., 2021). For instance, all my current assets are inherited by my three children, one adopted child, and my parents.

For instance, if a single person dies intestate but they have children as per code; the property or assets will be divided equally among the beneficiaries or descendants if they come from the same degree of consanguinity and affinity. However, the case will be different if the beneficiaries come from different degrees of consanguinity and affinity, for instance, if your grandchildren have children and their parents who are you children dies and predeceases you, then the younger generation is entitled to get the share that should have given the older generation if they did not die.

A good example is supposed one has four children and all of them survive; then the four are entitled ¼ of the assets or property. If one dies but has three children, the three surviving children will inherit ¼ of the entire property and split their parent share assets. However, if one’s children die, all of them predeceasing them, leaving four grandchildren in total surviving, the grandchildren are entitled to an equal share. In Texas, the property is only classified as owned by a spouse as separate property or community property depending on acquiring it. A property is classified as separate property if one party acquired it before marriage. In Texas, there is an irrebuttable presumption that any assets or property acquired after the formation of marriage is community accepted in cases of inheritance gifts.

For instance, if one owns a mansion or house before marriage, the mansion or home will be recognized as separate property by the law. Moreover, if one inherits gifts or assets from his guardians, friends, or parents that will also be separate property. The property will remain community or separate even if one converts it into cash and back again or invests it. For example, if one sells a mansion owned as separate property, the property will still be classified as separate property by the law in Texas. That is true even though you sold the property while you were married.

Additionally, if you reinvest the sale proceeds into another house titled in your name, that house would also be your separate property, even though you purchased it during your marriage. It is also of necessity that a person purchases a property that does not create room for presumptions of an intended gift to the other party. One should avoid including the spouse’s name in the deeds of the property being recognized as separate property because, in case of any dispute, the other party can claim it as a gift.

The State Statute Controls the Disposition of Each Asset Specifically

If one dies without a will in Texas, the beneficiaries receive an intestate share of their assets. The contribution of a share depends on the number of children, whether or not one is married or not, and finally, if one’s spouse is one’s parents’ child. In my case, all my current assets will be divided equally among my parents, one adopted child, and three children as stipulated in the Texas Estate code CAP 201. In Texas, both inherited children and your children are recognized as one’s children; however, there is an issue of clarity (Nichols et al., 2021). For all children born during any persisting marriage or with your wife, the court will be presumed a child belongs to the husband and is entitled to his share as stipulated under Texas Est. Code § 201.101.

For instance, in the Texas Estate Code §201.054, all legally adopted children are entitled to inheritance, and an intestate shares the same as your biological children or beneficiaries. The stepchildren and foster children that are not legally adopted or recognized by law are not entitled to any share or should not receive any property. In Texas, all children placed for adoption and were legally adopted by another family or group of people will be entitled to an estate share as stipulated under Texas Est. Code §201.054.

Moreover, for all posthumous children conceived by the deceased party but die before the child is born, the child will be entitled to a share of his estate as long they survive for more than 120 hours from the time of birth as stipulated under Texas Est. Code §201.056. Nevertheless, all children born outside the marriage, if one was not married to their children’s mother she gave birth to such children; they are entitled to receive a share of the property. Secondly, if one participates in a marriage ceremony and later is declared void and null, the children will only inherit the property under the following situations (Beyer, 2021). If one acknowledged their paternity in writing, one adopted child, the paternity under Texas statutes during their lifetime, or the child applied for probate to determine inheritance rights and paternity as stipulated under Texas Est. Code §201.052.

The Benefits of a Written Estate Plan

A written estate plan is of very great impact, especially after one dies intestate. It clearly illustrates how one’s property and assets will be disposed to their beneficiaries in case they die. Such a written estate plan also includes one’s incapacitation. If somebody loses their mental capacity or becomes ill or gets an accident, the plan will cater for that. Estate planning serves as a device for wealth management and ensures all beneficiaries are advantaged after the property and finances are properly taken care of and distributed. It helps the dependants avoid intestacy and probate rules to prevent unintended disposal and distribution of property.

References

Beyer, G. W. (2021). 2021 Texas estates & trust codes with commentary. SSRN Electronic Journal.

Kanapickiene, R., Keliuotyte-Staniuleniene, G., & Teresiene, D. (2021). Disclosure of non-current tangible assets information in private sector entities financial statements: The case of Lithuania.Economies, 9(2), 78.

Nichols, T. P., Edgerton, A. K., & Desimone, L. M. (2021). “Smart power” in standards implementation after no child left behind. American Journal of Education, 128(1), 000-000. Web.

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees the equal protection of laws to every citizen. Therefore, everyone has the right to a fair trial and to be treated equally. Nevertheless, the idea of this amendment was compromised on multiple occasions due to American courts’ homophobic decisions. The situation changed in 2003 when the case of Lawrence v. Texas ended up in the Supreme Court. In September 1998, police arrived at Lawrence’s house, following a report from a citizen, who, allegedly, had seen an unstable man with a gun. When inspecting the house, the officers caught Lawrence engaged in a consensual sexual act with Tyron Garner. The two men were arrested and later found guilty of violating the Texas “Homosexual Conduct”. This paper aims to demonstrate that John Lawrence and Tyron Garner were wrongfully convicted, which violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

Such “sodomy laws” deprive members of the LGBTQ community of their fundamental rights. As it turned out, the call to the police was made by Lawrence’s jealous ex-lover, who lied about the man with a gun and knew the police would catch Lawrence and Garner in the middle of an act. The defense insisted that the conviction was based on homophobic principles, as the Texas law does not prohibit the same sexual acts between men and women (Pierceson, 2019). Subsequently, having had a series of appeals denied by local courts, Lawrence addressed the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. The decision was six-to-three, presented by Justice Anthony Kennedy. The Court based its ruling on the fact that the sexual act in question happened between two consenting adults and there was no third-party hurt by their actions. As Pierceson (2019) says, the Court invalidated sodomy laws in the USA and ruled that “the choice of LGBTQ adults to choose a partner of the same sex is constitutionally protected” (p. 259). Therefore, Lawrence and Garner were wrongfully convicted, as they were both adults engaged in a consensual sexual act.

In general, “anti-sodomy” laws were common in the United States since the formation of the country. Pierceson (2019) defines sodomy as “non-procreative sexual activity” (p.258). At the same time, penalties for such activity went down for opposite-sex couples, while the term itself became associated with gay relationships (Pierceson, 2019). It was believed that the public needs to be protected from sodomy and public sexual acts. Strader and Hay (2019) note that such wrongful convictions often begin with a call from a concerned citizen. Alarmed by a report of public sexual activity, the police arrive at the spot and place suspects under arrest with a subsequent wrongful conviction, as was the case for Lawrence and Garner. Strader and Hay (2019) say that law enforcement agencies are usually unable to present any evidence in favor of such reports. Moreover, according to Strader and Hay (2019), “even if complaints do exist, they are often a product of society’s homophobic attitudes” (p. 501). This tendency directly violates the Fourteenth Amendment, as same-sex partners are targeted by law enforcement on the sole basis of their sexual orientation.

Homophobia in the United States had hurt many people before the Supreme Court voided sodomy laws in 13 states. According to the Williams Institute report, there are over 770,000 LGBTQ adults and 158,000 young people living in Texas alone (Mallory et al., 2017). Following the Supreme Court decision, same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts several months later, and in twelve more years, homosexual marriage became legal in all of the United States by the Supreme Court decision (Pierceson, 2019). Nevertheless, the Williams Institute report says that “although Texas’s sodomy law is no longer enforceable after Lawrence, the law remains on the books and continues to have lingering negative effects on LGBT people in the state” (Mallory et al., 2017, p.12). According to the report, police threatened to arrest two men after they kissed in a restaurant in El Paso in 2009 (Mallory et al., 2017). The case was settled out of court, which indicates that serious progress has been made since the Supreme Court ruling in 2003. Even though homophobic ideas may persist among some people, the LGBTQ community now officially has its constitutional rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

All in all, the case of Lawrence and Garner v. Texas became a classic example of wrongful conviction based solely on homophobic laws and ideas. The hearing attracted the public’s attention to the injustice and the Supreme Court of the United States had to make a hard yet, fair decision. Lawrence and Garner were found innocent, and their story led to a brighter future for the LGBTQ community. This landmark case resonated for years after the ruling, forever changing the country’s political and social landscape. anti-sodomy laws voided by Court were shortly replaced by those that legalize same-sex relationships and marriage, making the lives of millions of people better and happier.

References

Mallory, C., Brown, T. N, Russell, S., & Sears, B. (2017). The Impact of Stigma and Discrimination against LGBT People in Texas. UCLA: The Williams Institute. Web.

Pierceson, J. (Ed.). (2019). LGBTQ Americans in the U.S. political system: An encyclopedia of activists, voters, candidates, and officeholders. ABC-CLIO.

Strader, L., & Hay, L. (2019). Lewd stings: Extending Lawrence v. Texas to discriminatory enforcement. American Criminal Law Review, 56(2), 465–509.

Article Description

This article describes how the Tarrant County SWIFT court program in Texas has functioned to keep repeat offenders out of the jail system by using short, consistent sanctions to ensure that probationers do not violate their sentence conditions. Unlike traditional probation systems that allow offenders to engage in repeat violations of their sentence conditions before having their probation revoked, the SWIFT program focuses on prompt, attention-getting punishment to change the behaviors of repeat offenders while at the same time keeping them out of prison.

For example, “when a SWIFT offender violates a technical condition of probation, such as missing a scheduled meeting, he or she is immediately sent before a judge and often receives a quick punishment, such as a weekend in jail” (Mitchell par. 10). Such a short, consistent form of punishment not only reinforces good behavior among repeat offenders, but also serves as an effective alternative to traditional systems that revolve around probation, revocation, and then prison (Mitchell par. 16).

From the article, it is clear that the SWIFT program functions at the same level with another probation program known as HOPE, though the former serves more repeat offenders and is funded at a much lower cost than the latter (Mitchell par. 12-13). Overall, there are many benefits associated with the SWIFT program, with available statistics demonstrating that

1. fewer SWIFT participants have had their probation revoked for technical reasons compared with the county’s regular probation system and statewide figures,
2. more SWIFT participants have stopped violating the conditions of their probation because they know they will get caught and go to jail, and
3. fewer financial resources have been used to supervise offenders in the SWIFT program compared to what is used to house offenders in Texas prisons (Mitchell par. 18-20).

Additional Insights

This article provides useful insights into how probation officers and other stakeholders in the criminal justice system can use short, consistent sanctions not only to reinforce positive behavior change among repeat offenders, but also to keep them out of prison. The article highlights that the traditional probation’s orientation of allowing offenders to engage in repeat violations of their sentence conditions before having their probation revoked is no longer attractive as it reinforces a prison culture that is costly to maintain, not mentioning that it does not always contribute to positive behavior change among offenders.

It is evident from the article that repeat offenders are more willing to change their behaviors and reform when they have prior knowledge that they risk being swiftly and consistently exposed to sanctions as long as they continue to violate their probation or sentence conditions. Consequently, it can be argued that the swiftness and consistency of sanctions is a game changer in reinforcing positive behavior change among repeat offenders.

Important New Information

The article adds new knowledge into the probation literature by demonstrating the importance of using short, consistent sanctions not only to reinforce positive behavior change among repeat offenders, but also to keep them out of jail. In essence, the article addresses the shortfalls of traditional probation systems by demonstrating the need to promptly expose repeat offenders to short and consistent sanctions that are intended to reinforce positive behavior change. Lastly, the article demonstrates how effective probation programs can be developed and implemented using minimal budgetary allocations, hence releasing scarce resources for use in other jurisdictions such as in the maintenance of law and order.

Works Cited

Mitchell, Mitch. “Sanctions can come quickly for Offenders Involved in North Texas Probation Program.” The Republic. 2014. Web.

Adams, R. (2017). Whistling past the graveyard cemeteries in Texas. Texas A&M University. Web.

The article discusses the principle governing regulations of owning a cemetery in Texas, stating the most recent statutory definitions change. Moreover, it talks about the legal matters of establishing a cemetery and procedures for removing it. The author of the article is a research scientist at the A&M University of Texas, hence, is credible. The intended audience of the piece are people seeking to establish or demolish a cemetery on private property. The article understandably elaborates on complicated legal matters, making comparisons with other reports that formally provide related information. The source is relevant as it covers the objectives of the study through in-depth research.

Bisnow. (2017). Urban cemeteries running out of space as baby boomers enter twilight years. Forbes. Web.

The Forbes article talks about the lack of burial space in urban areas and issues that will appear in the future. The author states reliable statistics and costs to provide extensive evidence about the problem. The article explains the reasons for such lack of space and high prices and makes future predictions. The author is a former Forbes contributor, Bisnow – an international digital media company. The intended audience is presumed to include the “baby boomer” generation, as well as people living in urban areas. The article is of utmost relevance to the paper, as it vividly and profoundly demonstrates the issue of the research, providing relevant data to reaffirm it.

Drabble, B. (2019). Dying to get in: Cemeteries on private property are private cemeteries legal in Texas? Funeral Consumers Alliance. Web.

The primary purpose of the article is to discuss cemeteries on private property in Texas and provide relevant legal data regarding that matter. The author exposes the most common restrictions that a person may face upon establishing a burial on the private property and how they can be overcome. Additionally, the article includes links to all legal documents with requirements to reaffirm the evidence on the provided information. The article’s author, Bill Drabble, is an authorized attorney specializing in representing property owners, and therefore is competent in the discussed matter. The text is highly relevant to the research and is unique as it includes the discussion of a private burial establishment.

Tang, J. (2019). Cemeteries use a lot of space and are terrible for the environment. Is there a better way? Greater Greater Washington. Web.

The article mainly discusses the issue of the lack of space for cemeteries and their impact on the environment. It also provides predictions of the population growth in relevance to the available burial space, concluding on the matter that there will be not enough cemeteries, referring to the example of Washington and North Virginia. The article touches on the environmental impact of such burials with statistical information. The intended audience is primarily East Cost residents but can be applied to all Americans. This article is relevant to the research, providing data on the lack of burial area and relating it to the environment, which is unique compared to other references. The article’s author is a specialist in policies and a researcher, making her a credible person.

Texas Cemeteries and Crematories Association. (n.d.). Establishing a family cemetery. Web.

The legal paper includes information on establishing a cemetery under Texas laws, providing local regulations about the sizes, depth of graves, and other relevant information based on the Texas Health and Safety Code. Additionally, the report offers advice and consideration for people planning to build a cemetery to avoid any misconceptions and problems with the government and local citizens. The author of the article is a government agency and, therefore, can be considered reliable for the research. The information is relevant to the paper, providing specific data on the researched topic. The intended audience is deemed to be Texans, who plan to establish a burial, or out-of-state people planning to build such property on Texas grounds.

References

Adams, R. (2017). Whistling past the graveyard cemeteries in Texas. [PDF document]. Web.

Bisnow. (2017). Urban cemeteries running out of space as baby boomers enter twilight years. Forbes. Web.

Drabble, B. (2019). Dying to get in: Cemeteries on private property are private cemeteries legal in Texas? [PDF document] Web.

Tang, J. (2019). Cemeteries use a lot of space and are terrible for the environment. Is there a better way? Greater Greater Washington. Web.

Texas Cemeteries and Crematories Association. (n.d.). Establishing a family cemetery. [PDF document]. Web.

The siege of the Alamo is a battle which represents the struggle of Texan forces against Mexican conquerors for independence. Stressing the importance of the Siege of the Alamo in the whole battle, it should be stressed that both sides fought with courage and the victory of Mexican forces in the particular event can be explained by their superior forces. The battle was lost, however, it still remains as one of the most important events in the fight for independence. The courage and reimbursement of each of the soldiers who tried to protect the Alamo Mission could not be overestimated. Speaking of the hero who can perfectly represent the events of the battle, William Barret Travis should be referred to. Much is known about the duration of the fight and occupation from the letters he sent from the Alamo Mission to John W. Smith, a Texas politician and mayor who supported the fighters during their fight for independence.

The siege of the Alamo is the first fight between Mexican and Texan armies during the fight of independence. Being invited by John W. Smith to taking part in this fight William Barret Travis could not refuse the invitation, but he had serious concerns about the successful outcome of the affair referencing to the number of Mexican forces and Texan ones. The situation appeared to be worse than Travis predicted, there were between 1,800 and 5,000 of soldiers from the Mexican side, and between 189-257 soldiers from Texan side as per different sources (Gunderson 20). However, the soldiers fought for death. To understand the situation Texan soldiers appeared while the siege of the Alamo, a letter from William Barret Travis to public pronouncement should be presented here.

I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I have sustained a continual Bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken. I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country. Victory or Death.

P.S. The Lord is on our side. When the enemy appeared in sight we had not three bushels of corn. We have since found in deserted houses 80 or 90 bushels and got into the walls 20 or 30 head of Beeves (Hansen 32).

This letter is the explanation of the situation which was inside the mission. The number of soldiers was too little and the forces of the enemy increased every day. Asking for assistance Travis understood that the situation was too complicated and the necessary forces could not come on time. However, the mood of the soldiers, their desire to make their place free from occupation and power of Mexicans made those fearless. As a result, the fight took place. Even though the siege of the Alamo was lost and Mexicans managed to fought down Texan forces on March, 6. This date is considered as the end of the siege of the Alamo, but not the end of the battle of the Alamo in general.

Much attention should be paid to the rivals of Texan forces. Antonio López de Santa Anna was the Mexican political leader who headed the military forces of conquerors. The historical worthy of Santa Anna in being a villain in the drama may be explained by the strategy used by the leader while taking the mission. Santa Anna grouped his forces into four colons and on the 6^th of March they began silently approach the mission. Texan soldiers did not expect such intrusion waiting for a loud fight. Therefore, the result of the battle was predetermined and expected. Santa Anna’s actions may be explained and easily understood. There was no another way out as the victory of Mexicans, but in case of loud and predicted fight many Mexicans could be killed and injured. Texan forces did not have any intention to leave the mission without a fight. Therefore, being interested in fewer loses of its army Santa Anna acted in the way he did.

In conclusion, it should be stated that William Barret Travis and Antonio López de Santa Anna are two heroes of the siege of the Alamo who deserve attention. The actions of these two people are prominent and important. Dwelling upon the event under consideration, these people were the leaders of their armies and their decisions made the history as it was.

Works Cited

Gunderson, Cory. The Battle of Alamo. New York: ABDO, 2010. Print.

Hansen, Todd. The Alamo Reader: A Study in History. New York: Stackpole Books, 2003. Print.