Thank you Professor Ellerman.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/business/mixed-success-so-far-for-health-laws-co-ops.html?_r=0

As far as health laws go. I would have to say that I really don't really agree at all. As for California in general .I feel that their off the hook and been give way to much power over something they really have no idea what to do with Their making it up as they go and hoping for the best.

Public Sector Cuts Part-Time Shifts to Duck Insurance Laws

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/us/public-sector-cuts-part-time-shifts-to-duck-insurance-law.html

This is article is about the state of Washington and how public sector jobs are having part-time employee cutbacks due the effects of the affordable care act. The act is pushing health insurance rates up for employers and they had to make cuts to stay within their budget. Mark D. Benigni, the superintendent of schools in Connecticut stated, “Are we supposed to lay off full-time teachers so that we can provide insurance coverage to part-time employees?”. This has put not only schools but all public sectors at risk for reduced part-time hours with reduced health benefits. Republicans stand to gain from these personal reductions in the public sector; by blaming the democrats for these effects of the affordable care act. This effects us in the community college system because about 45% of teachers are part-time and they may see reductions as well. The effects of the affordable care are being felt in many sectors of business and companies are having to circumvent insurance laws in order to maintain their budgets.

For Small businesses, a road without a map

This article contains information about how Congress has not yet renewed about 4 dozen provisions in the Internal Revenue Code. Among these codes are permits that allows to write off various expenses.These codes came up to be renewed in the beginning of  2013 and congress hadn't renewed them thus, small businesses felt higher tax rate. Now in 2014 and just about to finish up the tax season and Congress still haven't renewed the codes. In this point in time Congress has not scheduled a vote for the renewal as a result small companies must make cuts to their process. Because of the need to make cutbacks every company in the United States right now has to plan for 2014 without the research credit, the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and a whole bunch of other provisions which will  have its impact on the economy. Because Congress is involved I would have to say this would fall under federal law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/business/yourtaxes/for-small-businesses-a-road-without-a-map.html?ref=smallbusiness&_r=0

F.C.C Keeping the Internet Free

The F.C.C, or Federal Communications Commission for those of you who had no idea what that stood for like myself, is pushing for new rules for what they are calling "net neutrality."  Net neutrality is their idea of keeping internet service providers from charging companies to stream their information through a faster "VIP" internet pipeline.  A practice that is implemented today, this blocking, picking, choosing, and overall discrimination within the internet and what information is more available to consumers is the main focus of the F.C.C's argument and purpose with these rules.  They argue that such practices are dangerous to the free, open, and overall equal grounds of the internet and its relationship to information and innovation.  They also claim that such practices inhibit and damage the nature of innovative "small" ideas such as Facebook in its earlier years.  Such a viewpoint is fairly important and the internet is something taken very lightly by most people in the world today, though protection of one of the greatest ways of communicating and sharing of information and speech with one another is of utmost importance.  Yet the other side of the coin contains the age old freedom within business and capitalism in which the service providers would be undermined with such rules of restriction.  The rules, if passed, would be federal for the F.C.C regulates communication across states.  The F.C.C is an independent agency of the United States government meaning it is part of the executive branch yet the president can not touch it.  

In the name of matrimony

This video that I am posting is basically Ellerman's Lecture today in a nutshell.

Right out of the gate the video gives some background information about same sex marriage. By touching on the facts of benefits and how once the states allowed same sex marriage it was up to the federal system to catch up and to also recognize the marriages.

With the federal system recognizing these marriages it allows people who get married in a state that allows same sex marriage to have their marriage recognized even if they move to a state that doesn't.
Not only does it give security to the couples that throughout our country their matrimony will always exist but it allows for them to also reap the benefits that come along with marriage.


http://youtu.be/5Z-Uzo_KOXo

Banning marriages between individuals who don't love each other.

http://www.theonion.com/video/new-law-would-ban-marriages-between-people-who-don,14401/

With the seemingly relentless debate and legislative action revolving around the topic of marriage, Its nice to have a little satire. Although the video is sarcastic, a lot of the points made in the video are honestly kind of true about traditional marriages. After watching this video I was curious to see what strange marriage laws may exist in our society today.

1. It is legal to annul a marriage that was done on a dare- Seems like a reasonable reason to bring up during a divorce hearing .....

2. Military members can get married by proxy if they desire too- because nothing says I love you more than sending your good friend billy to marry your wife for you.

3. Lastly, in South Carolina it is illegal to propose marriage and not mean it if ones is over 16 years old. Its actually a misdemeanor under the offenses against morality and decency act.

It seems that some areas of society hold on to their quirky marriage laws no matter how ridiculous they may seem.

Marriage Law Info
http://www.womansday.com/sex-relationships/dating-marriage/10-obscure-marriage-laws-in-the-us-110196

Common Law Marriage in Colorado

Common law marriage is used to describe a marriage that has not met the legal or "statutory" requirements as being necessary for a typical ceremonial marriage.  The degree of acceptance of a common law marriage varies state to state given that each state has varying laws that surround marriage.  The concept stemmed from English common law in which a couple would present themselves as being marriage and both consent yet not fully adhere or perform a ceremonial wedding with all of its legal jargon, kind of saying we just do what we want if we say we are married then we are married.  In 1877 precedent was set saying that valid common law marriages were valid unless the state passed a law forbidding them or saying they are not.  Colorado has yet to pass such a law, therefore under the definitions, a common law marriage is to the same respects the same as a ceremonial marriage and all the benefits it gives as well as things couples are bound to such as divorce or death being the only way to end it.  Those definitions are: that the parties are not already married, "hold" themselves out as husband and wife, consent to it, live together (for an amount of time), and have a reputation in the community for being married.  Such a concept can be seen, I suppose, as a loophole for whatever minor or major purposes it could be needed for (such as business and its relationship to marital laws and such), regardless it is, if anything, interesting.    
All information came from coloradoattorneygeneral.gov
Now here is a kind of funny video

Beware Common Law Marriage!