Leukemia: Cancer of the Blood Essay -- Diseases, Disorders

The river of life, the blood is the body’s primary means of transportation. Blood is a part of the hematopoietic system, which also includes lymphatic tissue, bone marrow, and the spleen. Blood is a complex transport medium that performs vital pick-up and delivery services for the body by picking up food and oxygen from the digestive and respiratory systems, and delivering those vital elements to different cells of the body. In exchange of the blood and oxygen, blood then picks up wastes from the cells for delivery to the urinary organs. These functions could not be provided for the individual cells without the blood. Like any other structure of the body, blood can be attacked by many types of disease, such as Leukemia. Leukemia is a general name given to a number of blood cancers that affect the blood. Blood transports hormones, enzymes, buffers, other types of biochemicals that are important in body functions. The blood is made of plasma and formed elements. Plasma is the clear, straw-colored fluidpart of the blood. The formed elements consist of red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets. The red blood cells (erythrocytes), play a critical role in transporting oxygen and carbon dioxide to various parts of the body, and play an important role in the homeostasis of the acid base balance of the body. The white blood cells (leukocytes), are responsible for cellular defense (phagocytosis of pathogenic microorganisms), humoral defense (secretion of antibodies involved in immune system response and regulation), and play a role in the body’s inflammatory response (secretion of Heparin and Histamine). Platelets play an important role in homeostasis of the blood and the coagulation (blood clotting). The average adult has appro... ...efinite way to prevent it from affecting the lives of many people. Fortunately, the medical world has developed many treatment options for the different types of leukemia and many people are able to survive and beat this potentially deadly cancer. Works Cited Bozzone, Donna M. â€Å"Leukemia.†Infobase Publishing Inc. 2009.11-134. CTCA Cancer Treatment Centers & Hospitals.Integrative Cancer Care.Web. 15 Jan 2012. http://cancercenter.com/. Lerner, Adrienne W. â€Å"Leukemia.†Greenhaven Press. 2009. 14-135. Leukemia and Lymphoma Society- Official Website.Web. 23 Jan 2012. http://www.leukemia.org. â€Å"Leukemia- Symptoms, Types, Causes, Diagnosis and Treatment Options for Leukemia.†WebMD- Better Information Better Health.Web. 3 Feb 2012. http://www.webmd.com/cancer/tc/leukemia-topic-overview. Parks, Peggy J. â€Å"Leukemia.†ReferencePoint Press Inc. 2010. 8-73.

Presidental powers Essay

In 2008, The Supreme Court heard and decided a case involving a fundamental right of citizens, that of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is the right of an accused person to go before a magistrate (judge) and hear and respond to the charges under which they are being held. In this particular case, Boumediene v. Bush (2008) a number of complications are involved in what at first blush appears to be a relatively simple determination. Throughout history, the Executive Branch has assumed extra-constitutional powers in times of war. A troublesome aspect of this phenomenon is the fact that the Executive Branch itself most often defines the terms and limitations of its own power. Historically, the Executive Branch has acted in times of war as it pleased, pleading the exigencies of war, and has deferred judgments about their actions until after the fact. (Smith, 1997) The Executive has also had an adversarial relationship with both the Legislative and Judicial Branches with respect to these issues. Despite provisions in the constitution designed to avoid such eventualities, the reality is that, in times of war, all the branches of government are complicit in granting the executive branch dictatorial powers, including the ability to suspend habeas corpus. (Smith, 1997) The â€Å"flexing† of executive muscle during times of war began in the United States as early as 1798. President John Adams encouraged congress to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts, which severely curtailed speech and print criticisms of the government, . Sedition Acts 1798) and gave the Executive the power to deport non-citizens the Executive deemed â€Å"dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States. † (Alien Act 1798) The fact that Congress passed these bills illustrates a number of informative underlying points regarding the issue. First, the Alien Act avoided constitutional conflict by designating as its targets non-citizens. (Alien Act 1798) Also, Congress, as an entity of the governme nt, felt that the Sedition Act served them as well as the executive. (Sedition Acts 1798) A further point here is that the exigent circumstances in this case consisted of an undeclared war. Underlying the logic behind allowing extra-constitutional presidential power during war is the fact that the executive cannot declare war, congress must do this. (Smith, 1997) Thus, the circumstances surrounding the Alien and Sedition Acts initiated a dubious and dangerous precedent wherein the President is allowed to determine when and if a state of war exists in order to exercise extra-constitutional powers. It should be noted that these Acts, and Adams’ actions under them, did not go unchallenged. (Smith, 1997) They gave particular strength to the Jeffersonian Republicans’ claim that Federalist government exercised too much power. They also provoked Kentucky and Virginia to publish resolutions promoting the notion of State sovereignty. (Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798-9) The outrage caused by these laws became a major factor in Adams loss to Jefferson in the election of 1800. (Smith, 1997) In a sense, then, one could argue that the Constitutional design of frequent elections remedied the abuse of executive power. This argument, however, ignores the failure of the checks and balances system to correct the problem. Ironically, the next President to test the use of extra-constitutional authority during an undeclared war was Thomas Jefferson. Smith, 1997) He attempted to enforce the Embargo Act of 1807 by charging violators with treason. This action was quickly repudiated by the federal courts. (Smith, 1997) In this instance, checks and balances worked. It should be noted, however, that Jefferson only acceded to the will of the Courts because he did not feel it a sufficient cause to ignore them. (Smith, 1997) While Andrew Jackson’s tenure as president served as a model for ignoring both checks and balances, and states’ rights, he did not bother to excuse his actions as the exigencies of a state of war(Smith, 1997). This being the case, while his administration did serve to illustrate a great weakness in the system of checks and balances, that of lack of enforcement power, it is not particularly relevant to this thesis. The first president to exercise extra-constitutional power during a declared war was Abraham Lincoln. (Smith, 1997) Lincoln first suspended habeas corpus in areas in rebellion against the United States. One could argue on a legal basis that he did nothing particularly unconstitutional in this case because the areas in question were in rebellion and his authority over them dubious at best. Smith, 1997) However, when Lincoln’s political opponents in the â€Å"loyal† United States began voicing opposition to his act, he suspended Habeas Corpus throughout the nation in 1862, and began jailing citizens for criticizing his actions. (Lincoln, 1862) Additionally, he began to prosecute American citizens in military tribunal courts for treason, precipitating the death penalty in some cases. (Smith, 1997) It wasn’t until 1866, after the war and Lincoln’s death that the Supreme Court rejected Lincoln’s actions, restored habeas corpus, and set aside a military tribunal’s sentence. Ex parte Milligan, 1866) Denial of the writ, argued Justice Davis for the Court, made it impossible for the accused to attain redress from the admittedly biased military tribunal. (Ex parte Milligan, 1866) During WWII, the issue of individual constitutional rights of citizens during war time again reared its head with Executive Order 9066. This order authorized the Military to designate citizens of Japanese descent as â€Å"dangerous†, (Roosevelt, 1942)deprive them of property and intern them in relocation camps without charge and with no burden of proof to justify their incarceration. Roosevelt, 1942) This action is frightening for a number of reasons: first, it was aimed at citizens, not non-citizens, it clearly violated several elements of the constitution and virtually every part of the Bill of Rights, (Roosevelt, 1942) it went unchallenged by most of the United States citizenry, and it was essentially upheld by the US Supreme Court in 1944. (Korematsu v. United States) The court’s defense of the actions taken pursuant to Executive Order 9066, that is, Japanese Exclusion and Interment, was to argue that the exigencies of war made it necessary. The court inexplicably dismissed the notion that the nature of the order itself was racist, and condoned the actions taken under it as necessary for the security of a nation at war. (Korematsu v. United States, 1944) The relationship of the Legislative branch to these circumstances, going all the way back to 1798, is complicit. They passed the sedition acts, passed laws in accordance with Lincoln’s findings, and offered no objections to Roosevelt’s behavior. It wasn’t until the era of Vietnam that the Legislative branch began to actively oppose executive â€Å"overreaching† using war as an excuse. (Smith, 1997) When Lyndon Johnson, and then Richard Nixon used executive power to expand an unpopular war, Congress responded with the War Powers Act. (1973) This law makes pointed and explicit references to the Constitution and frames itself as restoring the constitutional balance of power by limiting the time and nature with which the President can act militarily without the consent of congress. This is the first time that Congress has recognized the constitutional problems associated with undeclared wars. (War Powers Act, 1973) All of this history is the groundwork upon which executive, judicial and legislative action occurred with respect to the â€Å"war on terrorism† in the post- 9-11 United States. The Executive has informally redefined the nature of war, and in so doing, has effectively reversed the balance attempted by the War Powers Act. Smith, 2007)The nature of checks and balances, since 2001, has regressed to WWII levels of abuse, but this time without even the nominal justification of a declared war. Political considerations of short-sighted politicians led to the passage and renewal of the Patriot Act of 2001. While most of this law contains reasoned measures to increase domestic security, section 106 contains extremely troublesome language in that it appears to give the executive a â€Å"blank check† when dealing in activities that are counter to terrorist activities. It reads, in part: †¦when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country that he determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities or attacks against the United States; and all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such agency or person as the President may designate from time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe, such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes. † – Patrio t Act of 2001 HR 3162 RDS (2001) (italics added) Under this umbrella, provisions, such as unwarranted wire taps within the United States become nominally legal. The federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have rallied around some of the provisions of the Patriot Act, while rejecting others. A key part of the act Scrutinized by Supreme Court is the denial of habeas corpus to â€Å"enemy combatants† held in Guantanamo Bay. In 2004, the Court determined that such enemy combatants had the right to petition for habeas corpus. (Rasul v.  Bush) The reasoning within the argument held that despite the fact that the area of detention in this case was Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, the U. S. held sufficient Jurisdiction that the right of Habeas Corpus did indeed apply. (Rasul v. Bush, 2004) This case opened the door to detainees challenging the nature of their detention on constitutional grounds. For the first time, the Courts heard circumstances and conditions of detainees and were able to adjudge the constitutionality of these activities. (Smith, 2007) Finally, in 2008, a deeply divided Supreme Court took the final step in securing detainees rights under the constitution by allowing them to appeal their detention to civilian courts. This decision states that the president had acted unconstitutionally in denying civilian due process. (Boumedien v. Bush, 2008) The fact that this case was extremely political in nature, having potentially significant impact on the presidential elections, illustrates a fundamental shift in the balance of power between the three branches of government. The â€Å"power of the purse† by which Congress could nominally control military actions by directing funding has been blunted by political considerations. Members of Congress cannot advocate cutting or eliminating funding for operations already in progress, since that action would manifestly compromise security, and endanger the lives of US military combatants. To advocate for funding cuts to military operations would be political suicide; thus the pendulum of War Powers has shifted back to the executive. Thought the constitution grants the singular power to declare war to congress, it is frustratingly vague as to what constitutes such a declaration. (Smith, 1997)That ambiguity has been exploited by the Executive Branch to keep the country mired in an unpopular war, and to exercise significant extra-constitutional powers both within and outside of the United States. While the nature of the dynamic between the Legislative and Executive branches in matters pertaining to war have historically been amiable, in the case of Vietnam and afterward, the relationship has been unbalanced and hostile.

The Pros And Cons Of Gun Control - 785 Words

Gun control is a big topic in the United States today, a lot of people have many different opinions on this. They are usually about whether we should we have gun control or not. We should not need gun control to solve crime in the United States. We need laws, background checks and more. The conversation about gun control will continue on as long as guns are made and used. The argument about gun control is doubled sided. This means that on one side citizens want the government to have control over citizens having guns. They believe it should be made a law that people are not allowed to have guns in general. On the other side, citizens do not want gun control and believe that, because of the second amendment everyone who wants a gun should†¦show more content†¦If the government took guns and put a gun control in effect then the crime rate would drastically go up because the people who commit these crimes know that their victims are vulnerable. Mass shootings play a big part in the gun control argument, they are what spark the argument because the guns that are used kill so many people, for example the Las Vegas shooting killed 58 people and injured 489 people,or the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting which killed 20 children and 6 teachers. The gun did not kill these people, the person behind the gun did. Yes it is sad to think that people would actually want to buy a gun to go kill innocent people and that they can at any time, but it is also sad that if the government puts a gun control into effect that citizens will have no way to protect themselves. To reduce crime the U.S should be proactive about crime, not just but in laws that will make more people upset than happy. The government needs to think about everyone in the picture. To be more proactive the government should have a representative give speeches about guns, mass shootings and crimes to open peoples eyes about how much crimes and killings happen each day. Another way to reduce crime is offer help,Show MoreRelatedThe Pros And Cons Of Gun Control1225 Words   |  5 Pagesto discuss in this paper is gun control as I feel it is a hotly debated issue in the country today, especially after the incidents we have had throughout the recent years. Gun control has and probably will always be an issue that is argued for or against from all political sides, regardless, of your own beliefs one must look at the pros and cons of gun control to determine what is necessary. To address this, we must first look at the statistics on deaths involving guns and then apply the currentRead MoreGun Control: Pros and Cons1986 Words   |  8 Pages| Page(s) | 1 | Table of Content | 1 | 2 | Introduction | 2 | 3 | Gun Control: Pros (i) Disarm and Control Citizens (ii) Better Management (iii) Reduce Crime Rate and Death Rate | 3-4 | 4 | Gun Control: Cons (i) People’s Life Unsecured (ii) Women’s Safety Unguaranteed (iii) Spring Up of Black Markets (iv) Conflict with Democracy | 5-7 | 5 | Conclusion | 8 | 6 | References | 9 | Introduction: A gun is a normally tubular weapon or other device designed to discharge projectilesRead MorePros And Cons Of Gun Control1511 Words   |  7 PagesGun control is a policy that the government limits the keeping and using of guns by citizens. According to Firearms and Federal Law: The Gun Control Act Of 1968, the Gun Control Act is designed to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence. (Journal of Legal Studies). Firearm is an epochal invention. But unfortunately, no matter in the past or now, guns and firearms are often misused. Therefore, gun control policy exists. InRead MoreThe Pros And Cons Of Gun Control875 Words   |  4 Pagesissue of gun control laws has become a prevalent topic of debate throughout American society. This debate stems from two opposing arguments over gun control. Some feel gun control laws are fair and not the contributing factor to these mass shootings, whereas, others feel that there is an urgent need for strict laws in order to end the problem of mass shootings. There are numerous pros and cons to the enforcement of stricter gun control laws but we must note a few things: stricter gun control laws wouldRead MoreThe Pros And Cons Of Gun Control897 Words   |  4 PagesGun control is an on going debated rather guns should be allowed or to be banned. Gun control, politics, legislation, and enforcement of measures intended to restrict access to, the possession of, or the use of arms, particularly firearms. Gun control is one of the most controversial and emotional issues in many countries, with the debate often centring on whether regulations on an individual’s right to arms are an undue restriction on liberty and whether there is a correlation between guns andRead MoreThe Pros And Cons Of Gun Control1329 Words   |  6 PagesGun control is an extremely controversial topic in America. There are many advocates of weapon control - individuals who wish to have stricter laws to keep certain groups of individuals from acquiring a gun. In any case, there are likewise the general population who cant help contradicting gun control laws and accept there ought to be a more tolerant gun control to moreover enable individuals to protect themselves amid dangerous circumstances. On the two sides of this issue, sentiments extend fromRea d MoreThe Pros And Cons Of Gun Control1474 Words   |  6 PagesGun control laws are an ongoing process that varies from location, to time of history. Throughout history different laws and regulations have been made about gun control across all continents on earth. These laws change frequently and will continue to do so till the end of time. Many people are either for or against these laws depending on their religion, moral beliefs and location. Although increasing gun control is used for the protection of citizens, it could be deemed unnecessary to many becauseRead MoreGun Control, Pro and Con.850 Words   |  4 PagesAmerica is the most well armed nation in the world. The reason why Americans own so many guns is because of the second Amendment, which states â€Å"The Right to Bear Arm†. This amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to have firearms. In the freedictionary.com, weapon is defined as, an instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or swo rd. There are many kinds of weapons and almost all of them are illegal to use without registration. Weapons are changing over times. Looking backRead MorePros And Cons Of Gun Control1073 Words   |  5 Pages Implementing gun control in the United States would only result in more chaos and increased rebellion from citizens who responsibly and legally own firearms. In doing so, the law-abiding citizens would be left defenseless against the criminals who continue to obtain guns illegally. Not only that, but the 2nd amendment rights of the United States Constitution would be diminished and the crime in the community would remain the same or perhaps increase. Gun control would not stop criminals from illegallyRead MorePros And Cons Of Gun Control738 Words   |  3 PagesGun control has become a huge political topic after the numerous violent killings in recent years. It has been debated whether gun control policies should be more lenient or more restrictive to best protect the American public. Many studies have been conducted in comparison to other countries that have stricter gun laws showing that crime has not dropped with increased gun control measures, nor has it affected a decline in h omicide rates. Other reports have shown that countries with more lenient