GSA Official indicted by Federal Jury

Jeffrey E. Neely

The Washington Post posted an article that talked about a Federal Jury indicting a former General Services Administration official with charges of fraud. Jeffrey E. Neely, the Western Regions Commissioner, faces criminal charges due to the fact that the grand jury indicted him on five counts of fraudulence. Neely tried to get reimbursement for his personal travel expenses and other expenses by submitting false claims and saying it was for government business. He was at the center of the scandal in the Las Vegas conference and the details of the trip came to attention with a 2012 inspector general’s review. In April 2012, GSA had placed Neely on leave and in May he left; another GSA Administrator Martha Johnson resigned and two deputies were fired after the scandal. When Neely was called to testify before he invoked the Fifth Amendment and then he did not show up to his hearing with the House of Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. He is supposed to make a court appearance in October, and if he is convicted he will get up to five years in prison and will have to pay at least $25,000 for each count.

The relevance this event holds to our government class is that even a former GSA official is not above the law and that he still needs to pay for the crimes he has committed. Former GSA Inspector General Brian Miller thinks that Neely has abused the trust given to him. Something like this sets a bad example for others in the agency and leads to the people’s distrust. The GSA is an independent agency of the U.S. Government which helps support and manage the basics of federal agencies, which is a type of checks and balance. The article also talks about the process of indicting and convicting a GSA official by the Federal Jury, and Neely’s right and use of the Fifth Amendment.

The Death Penalty

A picture of Lisa Coleman from the news.

The article, Texas carries out a rare occurrence: An execution of a women, posted in the Washington Post, talks about Lisa Coleman who was executed in Texas on Wednesday, September 17, by the lethal injection. The execution occurred about an hour after the U.S. Supreme Court denied the last minute appeal for her case. This 38 year-old woman was given pentobarbital after she was found guilty for the murder of Davontae Williams, her girlfriend’s son. The murder occurred 10 years ago. Marcella Williams, the girlfriend, pleaded guilty for the crime and received a life sentence. Lisa and Marcella had tortured the 9 year-old boy by starving, beating and restraining him, he weighed only 35 pounds and had close to 250 scars on his body when he died. A kidnapping that results in murder is considered to be capital murder in Texas. But a petition filed says that she tortured Davontae, but they never truly kidnapped him, so a capital murder was not committed. Regardless, Lisa Coleman received the capital punishment and Marcella Williams received the life sentence.

The main relevance is that the death penalty is a federal vs. state decision. 32 states in the United States have the death penalty. In the Texas she is ninth person to have been executed and the thirtieth in the country in this past year. Lisa Coleman is also the fifteenth women to have been executed since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976 by the Supreme Court. In Texas capital murder is also when murder occurs during a kidnapping. In 2011, capital murder became when a 10 year old or younger is murdered. This shows the difference in the definition of capital murder federally and state-wise. Appeals are also discussed in this article. The U.S. Supreme Court denies the appeal for the case and she receives the lethal injection.

Texas

Texas

Senator John Cornyn represents the State of Texas. Texas is a border state and their main concern is border control because it shares the longest border with Mexico compared to any other states. There are 18 out 43 ports of entry in Texas only. Texas is also the second largest state in the United States.

Texas has the second largest  population of 26.48 million people as of 2013. 44.0% of the population are White Americans alone not Hispanics or Latinos, 12.4% of that population is African American and Hispanics and Latinos make up 38.4% of the population. The people under the age of 18 in 2013 is 26.6% so the rest of the population makes up the voters in Texas. The growing population in Texas as brought more traffic to the urban areas compared to the rural. The urban areas in Texas, therefore are more booming than the rural areas.

The main industries in Texas are Livestock and Agriculture. Oil, chemicals, natural gases, electronics and mining are some more of Texas’s industries. The per capita income in Texas in 2012 was $41,471 and it is the 25th state according to the income.

Texas is a red or Republican state, but the increase Hispanic population is causing Texas to have more democrats. As of 2013, 61% of the population that consists of Non- Hispanic Whites is Republican. But 46% of Hispanic population in Texas is Democratic. Despite this fact, it is likely to remain a Republican state. The Texas Presidential elections show that the state is still Republican heavy with 57.19% Republican votes in 2012.

Federal Judge Approves of Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

Photo Credit

A Federal Judge is breaking the trend by approving the ban on same-sex marriages in Louisiana. According to the article in The New York Times, Judge Martin L.C. Feldman of the Federal District Court is going against the current trend of lifting the ban. Since the Supreme Court case United States v. Windsor last year, 19 other states and the District of Columbia have lifted the ban and 21 federal court decisions have found a same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional. Some legal experts think the judge’s approval of the ban on Wednesday will become irrelevant because Supreme Court will probably make a more final ruling in the next term. Nonetheless, the judge thinks that since same-sex marriage was not even possible until recently so it is not essential, and believes that agreeing to lift the ban on this will lead people to think marrying just about anyone, like one’s siblings, is okay. This is why he is the first federal judge to rule for the ban of same-sex marriage since the Supreme Court decision.

The relevance to our government course is that like the Republicans, Judge Martin Feldman believes marriage should be traditional. This means a man and woman can marry each other, and because it is a better environment for children. There is also talk about appeals being made about the judge’s decision. Some are even willing to take the case to the Supreme Court, which would also be a form of checks and balances in action. The main relevance is that the event is an example of a State V. Federal issue. Same-Sex marriage is legal federally, but every state has the choice of lifting or keeping the ban, and the judge has decided to approve of the ban in Louisiana.