The Schenck Ruling by Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Charles Schenck was the general secretary of the Socialist Party in the United States. During World War I, he was arrested for creating and distributing pamphlets that urged men to assert your rights and resist being drafted to fight in the war. Schenck was charged with attempting to obstruct recruitment efforts and the draft. He was charged and convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 that stated that people could not say, print, or publish anything against the government during times of war. He appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming the law violated his First Amendment right to free speech. Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes The former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States was Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. He served between 1902 and 1932.  Holmes passed the bar in 1877 and started working in the field as a lawyer at a private practice.  He also contributed editorial work to the American Law Review for three years, where he subsequently lectured at Harvard and published a collection of his essays called The Common Law.  Holmes was known as the Great Dissenter at the U.S. Supreme Court due to his opposing arguments with his colleagues. Espionage Act of 1917, Section 3 Following is the pertinent section of the Espionage Act of 1917 that was used to prosecute Schenck: Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports of false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military..., shall willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty..., or shall willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both. Supreme Court Decision The Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled unanimously against Schenck. It argued that, even though he had the right to free speech under the First Amendment during peacetime, this right to free speech was curtailed during the war if they presented a clear and present danger to the United States. It is in this decision that Holmes made his famous statement about free speech: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. Significance of Schenck v. the United States This had a huge significance at the time. It seriously lessened the strength of the First Amendment during times of war by removing its protections of the freedom of speech when that speech could incite a criminal action (like dodging the draft). The Clear and Present Danger rule lasted until 1969. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, this test was replaced with the Imminent Lawless Action test. Excerpt from Schencks Pamphlet: Assert Your Rights In exempting clergymen and members of the Society of Friends (popularly called Quakers) from active military service the examination boards have discriminated against you. In lending tacit or silent consent to the conscription law, in neglecting to assert your rights, you are (whether knowingly or not) helping to condone and support a most infamous and insidious conspiracy to abridge and destroy the sacred and cherished rights of a free people. You are a citizen: not a subject! You delegate your power to the officers of the law to be used for your good and welfare, not against you.

The Theresa Andrews Case

In September 2000, Jon and Teresa Andrews were busy getting ready to enter into parenthood. The young couple was childhood sweethearts and had been married for four years when they decided to begin building a family. Who would know that a chance meeting with another pregnant woman, while in the baby department of a store, would result in murder, kidnapping, and suicide? Summer of 2000 Michelle Bica, 39, shared the good news about her pregnancy with friends and family. She and her husband Thomas prepared their Ravenna, Ohio home for the arrival of their new baby girl by installing baby monitors, setting up a nursery, and buying baby supplies. The couple was jubilant about the pregnancy, especially after the miscarriage Michelle had suffered the year before.  Michelle donned maternity clothing, showed friends the baby sonogram, attended birthing classes, and other than her due date which kept getting pushed forward, her pregnancy appeared to be progressing normally. A Chance Meeting? During a shopping trip to the baby department at Wal-Mart, the Bicas met Jon and Teresa Andrews, who were also expecting their first child. The couples chatted about the cost of baby supplies and discovered that they lived just four streets away from each other. They also talked about due dates, genders, and other normal baby talk. Days following that meeting Michelle announced that there had been a mistake with her sonogram and that her baby was actually a boy. Teresa Andrews Disappears On Sept. 27, Jon Andrews received a call at work from Teresa at around 9 a.m. She was trying to sell her jeep and a woman had called saying she was interested in buying it.  Jon cautioned her to be careful and throughout the day tried to reach her to see how she was and if she sold the jeep, but his calls went unanswered. When he returned home he discovered both Teresa and the jeep were gone although she had left behind her purse and cell phone. He knew then that something was wrong and feared that his wife was in danger. Four Streets Over On the same day, Thomas Bica also received a call at his job from his wife. It was great news. Michelle, in a series of dramatic events, had given birth to their new baby boy. She explained that her water broke and she was taken to a hospital in an ambulance, had given birth, but was sent home with the newborn because of a tuberculosis scare at the hospital. Family and friends were told the good news and over the next week people came by to see the Bicas new baby which they named Michael Thomas. Friends described Thomas as a classic new dad who was ecstatic about their new baby. Michelle, however, seemed distant and depressed. She talked about the news of the missing woman and said she was not going to display the new baby flag in the yard out of respect for the Andrewses. The Investigation The following week, investigators tried to piece together clues into Teresas disappearance. A break in the case came when they identified the woman through phone records who called Theresa about the car. The woman was Michelle Bica. During the first interview with detectives, Michelle appeared evasive and nervous when she told them about her activities on Sept. 27. When the FBI checked out her story they found that she had never been to the hospital and there was not a tuberculosis scare. Her story appeared to be a lie. On October 2, detectives returned to do a second interview with Michelle, but as they pulled into the driveway, she locked herself in a bedroom, put a gun into her mouth, and shot and killed herself. Thomas was found outside the locked bedroom door in tears. The body of Teresa Andrews was found in a shallow grave covered in gravel inside the Bicas garage. She had been shot in the back and her abdomen had been cut opened and her baby removed. Authorities took the newborn baby from the Bica home to the hospital. After several days of testing,  DNA results proved that the baby belonged to Jon Andrews. The Aftermath Thomas Bica told police he believed everything Michelle had told him about her pregnancy and the birth of their son. He was given 12 hours of polygraph examinations which he passed. This along with the results of the investigation convinced the authorities that Thomas was not involved in the crime. Oscar Gavin Andrews Jon Andrews was left to mourn the loss of his childhood sweetheart, wife, and mother of his child. He found some solace in the fact that the baby, renamed as Teresa had always wanted, Oscar Gavin Andrews, had miraculously survived the brutal attack.

Advancement Opportunities of Professional Nursing Free Essays

At a time of the global economic recession, the healthcare professions, including nursing are experiencing an unprecedented upsurge in enrollment. The competition for the most lucrative of nursing positions are on the horizon, not only from US-trained professionals, but from foreign-educated nurses as well – the foreign nursing experts from the Philippines, India, Pakistan, among others. There are two tracks which a professional nurse may pursue in relation with his work – the clinical and management tracks. We will write a custom essay sample on Advancement Opportunities of Professional Nursing or any similar topic only for you Order Now The former is involved in pain management, beside care and assisting the physicians in surgical operations. The latter is involved in the day-to-day administration of hospitals and clinics, assisting management in the way these medical institutions are being run. The management track is involved in ensuring full efficiency in the deployment of nurses to the different departments of the hospital, and in providing contingency support in the event of a lack in human resources in a department. On the other hand, there are many ways by which nurses may advance themselves in their profession. At present, one of the more lucrative specializations in the nursing profession is being a nurse-anesthetist. He is involved in the general pain management of patients, under the direction and supervision of the physician-anesthesiologist. Being a nurse-anesthetist involves greater care and discretion in handling patients compared to regular non-specialized nurses, because it entails the administration of potentially-fatal anesthetic drugs. Meanwhile, nurses uninterested in greater pay can opt to involve themselves in international nursing work, as part of the staff of international medical organizations such as the Medicins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders), a most recognized international organization of doctors and nurses deployed in the most depressed areas of the world. Another field that may be pursued can be that of being a nurse-lecturer in a nursing school, especially now when there is great demand for highly-trained nurses to fill the positions of old nurses about to retire. For my part, I would pursue the clinical track of the nursing profession, because I believe that it would continue honing my bedside skills further and it would provides a sense of greater fulfillment in view of the fact that I shall continue being in constant interaction with patients whom I serve to the best of my abilities. References: Work in the Field. Doctors Without Borders. Retrieved from   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   http://doctorswithoutborders.org/work/field/ on April 8, 2009. American Association of Nurse Anesthetists. Education of Nurse Anesthetists in the United   Ã‚  Ã‚   States – At a Glance. 2005. Retrieved May 23, 2007, from http://www.aana.com/educuscrnas.aspx How to cite Advancement Opportunities of Professional Nursing, Papers

Scheduling Strategy

Question: Which Scheduling strategy would you recommend for this new operating system? Please provide reasons to support your recommendation? Answer: Consider first that I've been a day by day iPad client since the day the tablet propelled. I've never had much liking for MacOS and Apple desktops, yet I have actually utilized either the iPad, iPad 2 or new iPad consistently since April 3, 2010. Tablets work for me. Touch route meets expectations for me. What's more, the iPad has worked for mein spite of the way that its never helped me do any genuine work. Anyhow now there's a genuine distinct option for the iPad in my life. Throughout the previous couple of weeks, I've been playing with different Windows 8 tablets, including, yes, the new Surface RT, which I took for a twist on Microsoft's Redmond grounds recently. Windows 8 tablets are the genuine article, individuals, and their novel charms attach straightforwardly back to the new OS. Presently, don't imagine it any other way: Navigating the Windows 8 touch interface includes a precarious expectation to absorb information. The new touch motions aren't natural, and this alone cedes critical ground to iOS, which is so basic, ranch creatures could likely make sense of it. Anyway as with numerous vexing programming interfaces (think Photoshop or Excel), awesome force is frequently bolted inside apparently enigmatic UI. A Unix document is simply a huge pack of bytes, with no different qualities. Specifically, there is no ability to store data about the document sort or a pointer to a related application program outside the record's real information. All the more by and large, everything is a byte stream; even equipment gadgets are byte streams. This illustration was an enormous achievement of right on time Unix, and a genuine propel over a world in which (for instance) aggregated projects couldn't create yield that could be bolstered back to the compiler. Pipes and shell programming sprang from this allegory. At the same time Unix's byte-stream representation is central to the point that Unix experiences difficulty coordinating programming articles with operations that don't fit perfectly into the byte stream or record collection of operations (make, open, read, compose, erase). This is particularly an issue for GUI protests, for example, symbols, windows, and "live" records. Inside an established Unix model of the world, the best way to expand the everything-is-a-byte-stream analogy is through ioctl calls, a famously appalling accumulation of secondary passages into bit space. Enthusiasts of the Macintosh group of working frameworks have a tendency to be vociferous about this. They advocate a model in which a solitary filename may have both information and asset 'forks', the information fork relating to the Unix byte stream and the asset fork being an accumulation of name/worth sets. Unix partisans lean toward methodologies that make document information delineating toward oneself so that adequately the same kind of metadata is put away inside the record. The issue with the Unix methodology is that each system that composes the document needs to think about it. Subsequently, for instance, on the off chance that we need the document to convey sort data inside it, each instrument that touches it needs to fare thee well to either safeguard the sort field unaltered or translate and afterward revise it. While this would be hypothetically conceivable to orchestrate, by and by it would be excessively delicate. Then again, supporting document qualities brings up clumsy issues about which record operations ought to safeguard them. It's unmistakable that a duplicate of a named record to another name ought to duplicate the source document's traits and additionally its information however assume we cat(1) the document, diverting the yield of cat(1) to another name? The response to this inquiry relies on upon whether the qualities are really properties of filenames or are in some enchanted route packaged with the record's information as a kind of undetectable introduction or postamble. At that point the inquiry gets to be: Which operations make the properties noticeable. In registering, multitasking is a system where various undertakings (otherwise called courses of action) are performed amid the same time of time they are executed simultaneously (in covering time periods, new assignments beginning before others have finished) rather than consecutively (one finishing before the following begins). The undertakings offer basic transforming assets, for example, focal preparing units (CPUs) and principle memory. Multitasking does not so much imply that various assignments are executing at precisely the same moment. As it were, multitasking does not suggest parallel execution, yet it does imply that more than one undertaking can be part-path through execution in the meantime, and that more than one assignment is propelling over a given time of time. References: Belay, A., Prekas, G., Klimovic, A., Grossman, S., Kozyrakis, C., Bugnion, E. (2014, October). IX: A protected dataplane operating system for high throughput and low latency. In11th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 14),(Broomfield, CO)(pp. 49-65) Andrews, C. A., Huber, G. D., Lo, Y. C., Swierk, T. (2015).U.S. Patent No. 20,150,082,012. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Hodson, O. T., Hunt, G. C., Nightingale, E. B. (2014).U.S. Patent No. 8,776,088. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office