Until now.

Many advocates of same-sex marriage are celebrating a new Maryland law that allows for same-sex couples to file for divorce.

According to the Baltimore Sun, “the Maryland Court of Appeals has ruled that Maryland must recognize same-sex marriages legally certified elsewhere.”

Legal Doctrine Followed

For years, the state of Maryland has recognized out-of-state marriages, even though many states have different standards for marriage. “For instance,” opines the Baltimore Sun, “some states have common-law marriages, unions created by cohabitation and agreement rather than ceremony, and Maryland has long recognized them even though Maryland has no common-law marriage statute.”

Since other states (or provinces, like Washington, D. C.) recognize the legality of same-sex marriage, the Maryland Court of Appeals followed suit. The court voted 7-0 in favor of this law.

At the very least, for better or for worse, this decision strengthens the cause for same sex marriage. It now has its foot in the door.

Effect on Maryland’s Referendum

This fall, Maryland voters will be considering a referendum to legalize same sex marriage within the state’s jurisdiction. Many see this as a signal that voters will approve the referendum.

In Maryland, same sex couples can now legally file for divorce. Some, strange as it sounds, are celebrating.

For example, in 1994, the high Court’s approval rating was 80% favorability. In 2009, it was 64%.

Such a hit in the Supreme Court’s seeming-invincibility could open the door for the Obama Administration’s rekindled political hostility towards the Judiciary.

In fact, along the lines of President Andrew Jackson, President Obama has taken exceptionally dubious liberties in reprimanding the Court. In his 2011 State of the Union Address, for example, Barack Obama chastised the members of the Supreme Court for striking down a campaign finance reform bill. Recently, Barack Obama, in a clear political move, stated that the Court’s striking down of the health care bill would be “unprecedented” and compared it to judicial activism.

Not only has President Obama done so in the past, he may have reason to continue. First, the Supreme Court recently heard arguments for the constitutionality of Obama’s psuedo-brainchild, his Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), also known as Obamacare.

Secondly, the Court heard arguments for an Arizona law that has stepped up its enforcement of laws on illegal immigration.

If the Court strikes down either of these laws, Obama could let loose his rhetoric, especially considering that the Supreme Court ise no longer as popular as the branch once was.

According to the Christian Science Monitor, “Two major cases before the Supreme Court address important pieces of Mr. Obama’s record – his reform of the health-care system and his opposition to Arizona’s law cracking down on illegal immigration. If the court rules against his positions on either or both cases, a real possibility, Obama will face a decision on how, if at all, to address the court’s actions on the campaign trail.”

Naturally, the Supreme Court can take one of two options: rule the individual mandate, the centerpiece of the law, constitutional or unconstitutional. Either way, it appears as if the ruling will shake things up.

If the individual mandate is struck down…

Obama: repudiated

• Obama, before being elected to the Senate and then the presidency, was a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. If the PPACA is ruled unconstitutional, his credibility will take a hit. How could a constitutional law professor be so wrong?
• President Obama recently appointed Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, in fact, possibly for this very case. A defeat would be just that: a defeat.

Republicans: energy-driver would be destroyed

• Such a ruling would end the GOP’s argument that “a Republican president must be elected to guarantee repeal of the law,” writes the Boston Globe.

Liberals: re-energized

• If the court ruled that individual mandate is an unconstitutional use of Congress’ interstate commerce power, liberals may be re-energized. After all, the enacting of the individual mandate was a significant gain for the left.

If the individual mandate is upheld…

Obama: affirmed

American Origins

In America, the first U.S. Congress used qui tam laws to enforce the laws when the newly created federal government had very few law enforcement officers. Following in the footsteps of its mother country and common law, the United States used qui tam writs to help enforce the laws.

Civil War

During the Civil War, President Lincoln and Congress passed the False Claims Act of 1863. In fact, the law is sometimes referred to as “The Lincoln Law”. In principle, the federal law places liability on companies and persons that defraud the government’s programs. A section of the False Claims Act of 1863 allowed citizens to file a writ of qui tam.

World War II

Congress and the President weakened the False Claims Act of 1863  in 1943 during World War II. Since the war depended, in a large way, on military contracts, the federal government did not wanted to lift as many deterrents to governments as possible. Since the government signed many sizable military procurement contract, it lessened the control that the False Claims Act had on government contracts.

The Reagan Years

The False Claims Act was strengthened again in 1986 when the military expanded. The federal government feared that the military defense contractors would price gouge the military and re-instituted the teeth behind the False Claims Act.

The most important thing to do if you are in an accident and it is not your fault, is to get a good personal injury attorney, preferably, one that specializes in auto accidents.

If you are lucky enough to survive an automobile accident, you still have to deal with a myriad of damages. One of the issues is medical expenses. As we all know, medical expenses are very expensive. If you have been injured in an automobile accident, you will have to see a doctor. Doctor or hospital visits, surgery, wheelchairs, crutches and medications are all expenses that you will incur as a result of your injuries.

Another issue you have to deal with is the loss of income. If you are injured during an automobile accident, you will most likely miss work. When you are seriously injured, it is impossible for you to be expected to work. For some accident victims it is just a couple weeks, for others it could be a year or more. Without the ability to work, you will lose wages that you would have normally received.

Another issue is physical pain. Injuries are painful and can last months or years. Whether it’s a head or neck injury, a back injury or broken bones. If you have injuries as a result of an automobile accident, you are eligible to receive compensation for the pain and suffering that you have to endure. No one want to be in pain all the time.

Another issue that you have to deal with as a result of an automobile accident is mental anguish. Mental anguish is the mental aftermath of the accident. Things like stress, fear and anxiety are all considered forms of mental anguish. It is characterized by the things on the inside of a person that you cannot see.

So, if you are the victim of an accident, make sure to contact a reputable, automobile accident attorney.

Since the founding of the United States, 3,475 Medal of Honor awards have been given to American soldiers. The last was given in September of 2011. It is the highest honor the President of the United States can give a man under his command. According to the New York Times, Donald B. Verrilli Jr., the solicitor general of the United States said, “Military honors play a vital role in inculcating and sustaining the core values of our nation’s armed forces.”

According to The Stolen Valor Act in 2006, falsely claim military honors is a federal crime.

When Xavier Alvarez, a resident of Arizona, claimed that he was “an ex-Marine who had been awarded the Medal of Honor” at a local meeting, according to the L. A. Times, he was convicted. He maintained that the 1st Amendment protects his right to say such things. Most recently, U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Xavier and declared the law unconstitutional.

Now, the Supreme Court is set to decide if the freedom of speech shields people who makes these lies in U.S. vs. Alvarez.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer said, “There is a real harm…. It does hurt the medal if people falsely go around saying they have this medal when they don’t.”

Other Justices, on the other hand, contend that the Stolen Valor Act puts the 1st Amendment Right to the freedom of speech at risk.  ”Where do you stop?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked. The law, they argue, could lead down a slippery slope to laws against such things as lying about an extramarital affair, the Holocaust, a college degree or high-school diploma, or to impress a date.

Furthermore, Xavier’s lawyer, Jonathan D. Libby, argued that “there is a significant difference between a criminal sanction that puts someone in prison versus simply exposing them for what they are, which is a liar.”

According to U.S. Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, considered to be among the most liberal appellate judges, “Proposition 8 serves no purpose and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.”

Instead of dismantling the same-sex marriage ban in a general sense, the court took a more narrow approach. In short, it did not address the issue of whether the Constitution protects the rights of all same-sex couples to marry. Instead, because same-sex couples had the right to marry for a brief time in California, a proposition cannot take that away.

If a minority group possesses a right, the people of a state do not possess the Constitutional power to “use their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed,” wrote Reinhardt.

“Without a legitimate reason for doing so, the people of California violated the Equal Protection Clause” of the federal Constitution, Reinhardt wrote.

“The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort,” the Court maintained.

Decision: 2-1

• Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a Jimmy Carter appointee, held that the law was unconstitutional.
• Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, appointed by President Bill Clinton, concurred with Reinhardt.
• Judge N. Randy Smith, a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush, dissented.

According to Rogers, a British citizen, “the evacuation of the ship was completely chaotic. There was certainly no ‘women and children first’ policy. It was disgusting.” During the evacuation process, Rogers was separated from her children and lost her deceased husband’s ashes. Rogers was planning on scattering his ashes on her trip.

Says Rogers, “Thank God we didn’t do as they had told us as we may not have made it off the ship alive.” At first, the crew told passengers to return to their cabin because the ship was experiencing a simple technical problem.

Carnival’s Response

The capsizing of the ship claimed 11 lives and 21 people are still missing–approximately a week later. After a catastrophic event like this, the Cruise Firm is inspecting each of their ships. Carnival Corp.to conduct a fleet-wide review of its cruise ships’ safety and emergency response procedures.

Micky Arison, chairman and CEO of, said the company wants “to make sure that this kind of accident doesn’t happen again.”

That is not enough to passengers like Rogers.

In the third and final season of the mildly successful FOX comedy, Arrested Development, Bob Loblaw is introduced. While Loblaw is a lawyer who takes himself seriously, viewers can’t help but chuckle at his non-self-aware quirkiness.

In Loblaw’s commercial,

• He repeatedly closes a large, leather book, supposedly a legal dictionary.
• He only accepts cash for identity theft cases.
• “Why should you go to jail for a crime someone else…noticed?” he asks.
• The cheesy stock-music in the background is supposedly meant to suggest that the know-it-all lawyer is an inept person.

Watch the Bob Loblaw Commercial.

It’s the day after Christmas, and as I’m writing this post for our legal blog, I can’t help but realize that what Loblaw said to his friends, is the same thing I said to mine: “I thought that maybe I would stay in and work on my law blog.”

Here’s to a great 2012 for AttorneysOnYourSide.com!

It even decides between the different schemes of government that are within America. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, wrote that because “controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions” of the state and federal government will naturally arise, there must be, “under the general government” a “tribunal which is ultimately to decide” between the two (Federalist 39).

The Supreme Court of Pakistan is facing a similar task. Instead of deciding between the powers of the state and the powers of the federal government, the Pakistani Supreme Court must mediate between the civilian government, headed by President Asif Ali Zardari, and the powerful military government.

The military government alleges that an ally of Zardari inked a secret memo, seeking U.S. help to curb the Army’s powers.

According to Newsweek Pakistan, “The scandal threatens to embroil Zardari and fan tensions between his weak government and the military‚ the chief arbiter of power in Pakistan‚ forcing aides to deny that controversy and illness could see him driven from office.”

While America’s judicial system is controversial and political, let’s be thankful that it has not, at least since the Civil War, attempted to prevent full scale war. Wrote Madison, “Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact” (Federalist 39).