Daniel Olaguibel

BUS -340
September 11, 2016
Prof. Wilfred Gonzalez
Essay Questions:

Chapter 1:
Does our legal system rely primarily on the rule of the law or the rule of people?
Which do you instinctively trust more?
Currently the United States of America functions on rule by law. No matter
what the situation, or the grievance, there is going to be some kind of law that has
addressed it in the past. Even if they have not, any appointed jury or judge may,
and often do, refer to previous cases with similar situations to find out what they
should do. Morality is often interpreted as bias and therefor frowned upon.
We live in a country where doing the right thing runs the risk of being sued or
being held liable. This really curbs peoples desire to do well and right since they
might be faced with financial devastation for simply trying to help someone in need
and being labeled as an accomplice in murder or something of that vein.
A country is only as good as its states. States are only as good as its counties.
Counties only as good as its cities. Cities only as good as its neighborhoods. Finally,
neighborhoods are only as good as the individual homes. This is the root of moral
decay. A failure at the individual home level, which spreads outwards and upwards
in the aforementioned hierarchy.
Imagine the relief if we could trust in a leader who was moral! Who could
address the situations without working through stacks of papers and the people
trusted him/her as a good person? But alas we do not have that assurance so
instead we rely on laws, laws set ins stone by flawed men who cant address all
possible circumstances, and make many far more complicated than they need be.

Chapter 2:
Do CEOs who receive sweeteners have too strong an incentive to sell their
companies? Is it unseemly for them to be paid so much when many employees will
lose their job?
In short, yes, CEOs are awfully tempted to close out on a sweet deal for
themselves that probably will not be as great for their employees. Many CEOs will
find a way to justify taking the deal, and then take it. While strictly speaking nothing
ought to bar the CEO from closing his own business should he wish to do it, it does
not seem fair from an ethical perspective if the employees get screwed in the end.
One of my favorite quotes is from Balian of Ibelin portrayed by Orlando Bloom in the
movie Kingdom of Heaven. When asked to do a small evil for the purpose of a
greater good he replies with, It is a kingdom of conscience, or nothing. This is
applicable here because a man, a real man, ought to seek more than selfish
motives. If a CEO wants to sell his company and get a sweet deal while at it, so be
it; it does not mean he cannot work out a sweet deal for his employees also. If the
buyer wants the company, then the CEO has a responsibility to those who have
been faithful to him and ought to make sure they have closure money or new jobs
lined up.
It does not bode well with me that a CEO and other top ranking officers of a
company get all the benefits while leaving the bottom feeders to their own fate. The
same way a quarterback only rises to fame thanks to a unrecognized offensive line,
so too does a CEO ride on the shoulders of his laborers, especially one with many
thousands of employees. Certain laws in place to make sure those employees get a
fair deal seem ethical.

Good deals are certainly a temptation for CEOs but it would be nice to see
one with enough righteousness to sacrifice some self-gain so that those under him
may have a piece of the pie also. That is ethical. The business world might say that
it is okay to live one way in business and another in relational life. Yet one
influences the other and vice-versa.

Chapter 3:
Trail practice is dramatically different in Britain. Which approach do you think is
more ethical (US vs Britain)? What is more ethical? What is the purpose of the trial
and pre-trial preparation?
I do not have a clear opinion on what is better. I had never considered the
differences between the two but it would see at a glance that the British system
means to rely on the known and unknown facts rather than the exploitation of the
law by reading between the lines as much as possible. The American system pits
lawyer versus lawyer in a fight to see who outsmarts the other no matter what. It
feels like it anyway.
There are pros and cons to each. Some of the more evident will be presented
here. Firstly, the American system allows for the case to be considered in light of
previous similar cases and to see the verdicts therin. It allows for a very through
write up to be made about the situation at hand. By contrast the British system
allows for a more virgin presentation of the case, unmodified by digging through
previous cases and thousands of laws to find out how to make the lawyers story
sound best. These are the very things wrong in both systems.
As per usual, flaws appear when something is taken to an extreme. The same
can be said for the doctrine in the differing legal systems between the United States
and Britain. In the United States preparation time allows for s skewing of the case
or loopholes to be found that might help the client when he/she is truly guilty. In the
British system the lack of preparation may pose the case in poor light when it
comes to comparison of other cases and the consequences suffered thereof.

As it stands I would say both systems have some merits and some things
worth considering changing. I am inclined to say the British system streamlines the
process and cuts through a lot of the red tape, and therefore is a better, more
ethical system. This opinion is based on study and observation, not experience.

Chapter 4
No, Congress does not have any real way of checking the Supreme Court. At
best they can propose an amendment to a verdict of the Supreme Court, have the
president sign it, and then present the proposal to the Supreme Court. Truly, the
judges in the Supreme Court can rewrite the law however they see fit. Their
interpretation, as bizarre as it may be, is what goes. Let us embellish.
The Supreme Court can neither write nor enforce a law, but they can interpret
what is or is not constitutional. Therefore they can shut down bills as
unconstitutional and push others forward as constitutional. The fact that Supreme
Court Judges are appointed for life is preoccupying because those people arguably
hold the most influence over what the united States says is constitutional or not,
and if all of the judges had the same opinion since they were say, from the same
party, then it could severely cripple the check and balances system. Well, more than
it has been in the past.
Congress can try to rewrite or abandon the legislation of the Supreme Court.
They sometimes ignore the Supreme Courts Decision though they are not supposed
to. Who are we kidding though? A lot of things happen in government that should
not happen. The real kicker is that the very limited number of justices in the court
decide for ta nation of 318 million what is constitutional or not, and what the
founding fathers really meant when they drafted the Bill of Rights and the
Constitution.

In conclusion, Congress has no real way of overruling the Supreme Courts

decisions. There are a ways to alter them but not to flat out override.