Indian tribe`s inherent sovereign authority Essay Example for Free

Indian tribe`s inherent sovereign authority Essay INTRODUCTION: U.S Chief Justice John Marshall, in his milestone trilogy of   his decisions on Indian law in 1] Cherokee Nation v.Georgia 2] Johnson v.Mclntosh and 3] Worcester v. Georgia framed the foundation for Indian law viz. Indian tribes are under the trust protection of the federal government which stands good even today. As such, many tribes are enjoying the quasi-sovereignty status and have organized their own governments together with functional legislative, executive and judicial branches. Indian tribal courts function more or less in their Anglo-American colleagues and offer an intra-tribal tool for dispute resolution. The Supreme Court held in â€Å"Oliphant v.Suquanmish Indian Tribe â€Å"that for want of congressional action, tribes lacks inherent jurisdiction to punish outsiders.   Congress yet to legislatively recognize the Oliphant by extending jurisdiction to tribal courts to try criminally any non-Indians for the felony committed in the Indian regions This research paper will divulge how this jurisdictional predicament causes a practicable problem in United States Judiciary and possible ways and means to address the issue. INDIAN SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER NON-INDIANS- AN ANALYSIS: Crimes against native Indians are unleashed by non-Indians on daily basis. Crimes committed by non-Indians are cognizable offence that can be prosecuted only by federal district court by federal prosecutors. Unfortunately, many federal prosecutors have abandoned their duty to pursue crimes in Indian country committed by non-Indians due to overburden. The emergence of the Indian courts owed its origin to the tribal justice systems that predate the European settlement of America. On the basis of the age old convention, Congress has recognized the sovereign authority of tribes to maintain their own courts. But, Congress has limited that sovereignty as tribal courts have little jurisdiction over non-Indians .This is mainly intended to ensure that Indians are guaranteed the same constitutional rights as other Americans. As a result, tribal courts over the last two decades have lost their elite authority to try cases involving grave felonies and to enforce criminal penalties on non-Indians. In the year 1990, Supreme Court stripped Indian tribal courts of the power to hear cases involving Indians of a different tribe. But the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs later voted to reinstate that right to tribes for the next two years. [1992 to 1994]. In 1968, Congress established the Indian Civil Rights Act to offer on tribes requirements akin to those found in the Bill of Rights. There are about 147 tribal courts that exercise jurisdiction over nearly two million Indians in the United States in the year 1992. Tribal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over civil cases that arise between Indians on the reservations. But, if the plaintiff or defendant is other than Indian, state courts may have a simultaneous or even exclusive exercise rights to hear the case. In, â€Å"Oliphant v.Suquamish Indian Tribe† , 435 U.S, 55 L.Ed , 2d , 98 S.Ct, 48 U.S.L.W .4210 it was held that no inherent rights is ascribed to any Indian tribal courts to prosecute and punish non-Indians for offenses committed on Indian lands. It was the contention of the Indian tribes that jurisdiction is automatically conferred on them for trying any offenses of criminal nature on non-Indians in tribal lands as Supreme court made an opinion describing Indian tribes as â€Å" quasi –sovereign entities’. However, Supreme Court has observed in the present case that whenever efforts have been exercised in the past, it has been observed that there exists no jurisdiction. The tribal is having no authority to try non-Indians as it was established by earlier judicial opinions and also according to the general view of the executive authorities. But Judge Marshall, joined by the Chief justice dissented in the above case by taking the view that the power of preserve order on the reservation was a sine quo non of sovereignty that the Suquamish originally possessed. He further noted that in the absence of positive extraction of such rights by any treaty or statue ,the tribal enjoy as a necessary aspect of their sovereignty the right to try and punish all persons who commit offenses against tribal law within the reservation. In the past years, several Supreme Court rulings have drastically delineated the power of American Indians to govern their territories. The High Court ruled in 1978 that tribal courts cannot prosecute whites or other non-Indians for some felonies committed on tribal land. In one case, the justice held that a tribal court has no jurisdiction over crimes committed on that tribe’s land by members of another tribe. There are certain rulings that restricted Indian authority in taxation and zoning. Tribal leaders argue that U.S government apparent move away from recognizing ‘inherent sovereignty â€Å"of the Indian nations, which predate the arrival of whites to this continent makes them to worry. Though, the tribal leaders were not asking to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling in Oliphant v. Squamish Indian Tribe but they were demanding to overturn the High Court rulings in Duro V. Reina, which prohibited the Salt River Prima-Maricopa Indian Community in Arizona from prosecuting on a misdemeanor of weapons charge by an Indian man who lived in Salt River but was a member of a tribe in California. Thus, the rulings left a judicial void in states that do not assume jurisdiction over such misdemeanors and Congress temporarily restored jurisdiction to the tribes during 1990. 2.1 CRIMINAL JURISDICTION TO TRY NON –INDIANS TO COMBAT TERRORIST THREAT: In their effort to revive an amendment to the Homeland Security Act that would offer criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians to combat terrorist threats on Indian lands. But opponents were of the view that it will topple a 25-years –old Supreme Court decision â€Å" limiting and defining Indian sovereignty â€Å" and could lead to tribal power grabs which may affect of millions of non-Indians. Further, there is a proposal to reclassify the tribal governments as â€Å"states â€Å"under HSA law which facilitate tribes to receive sufficient federal funding and technical expertise to play a meaningful role in fighting terrorism. During 2003, the Senate Indian Affairs committee tried to add some amendments to homeland security bill but it was not successful as some group hit the panic button claiming that amendment would authorise control over all people for all purposes. The vested group fears that there would be other jurisdictional grabs by the tribal governments and tribes could exert authority over non-Indians by ignoring the fact that non-Indians cannot vote in tribal elections. The proposed amendment which has been officially designated as S.578 and the department itself has supported the first 12 sections of the amendment or those that would authorise the reclassification of tribal governments as states [not local government] in dealing with terrorism. But as per Heffelfinger, who is also chairman of the Attorney General Advisory Committee’s Native American issues subcommittee commented that the departments itself is not supporting section 13 , which would offer tribes the power to â€Å" enforce and adjudicate violations of civil , criminal and regulatory laws committed by any person on land under the jurisdiction of an Indian tribal government. But, as per 2000 census, non –Indians account for more than 48% of reservation residents who live on or near Indian reservations from discrimination â€Å"by state, federal or tribal government or their policies. Some critics view the proposed amendment to the Homeland Security Act violates the 1978 â€Å"Oliphant v.Suquamish Indian Tribe† rulings where Supreme Court observed that tribes do not have criminal jurisdiction to try and punish non-Indians. In real situation, the state or federal government is toothed with the power to arrest and try criminal offenders who are not Indians on Indian lands.   In other words, there is no need to arm the tribal government to initiate criminal proceedings on non-Indians on tribal lands as the state or federal government has adequate power to execute the same. [1] 2.2 OVERBURDENS OF FEDERAL COURTS: One the problem faced by tribal is that some of the felonies committed by non-Indians on tribal have been let off due to overburden of cases in federal courts and Supreme Court judgment which   had declared that non-Indians can not be prosecuted by the tribal courts. For instance, military courts do not have jurisdiction to prosecute the civilians who have infringed military’s interest. In such cases, â€Å"special assistant United States attorneys† [SAUSA’s] have the authority to prosecute such violators who have committed crimes against military personnel and property. The same strategy can be followed in the tribal cases also. Thus, the department should authorize Indian prosecutors to sue in the federal courts for the crimes committed by the non-Indians within Indian country.   2.3 USE OF MEHTAMPHETAMINE: Another issue encountered by the American tribes and tribal groups is their relentless fight against use of methamphetamine which they regard an epidemic on tribal lands. Lummi Nation of Washington, an American tribe is waging war with meth by imposing rigorous punishment to offenders. Some tribes are addressing the issue through new drug courts. Methamphetamine production and trafficking on tribal reservation with huge geographic areas or tribes adjacent to the U.S. –Mexico border is rampant. As the tribal states enjoy sovereign status, criminals are generally not subject to state jurisdiction in most of the cases. As the local law enforcement authorities have no jurisdiction in Indian country and tribal law enforcement agencies take the responsibility to enforce the relevant law enforcement functions. To combat the use of meth in tribal areas, Indian Tribes Methamphetamine Act of 2007 and Indian Tribes Methamphetamine Reduction Grants Act of 2007 were introduced in January 2007.   The legislation would permit Indian tribes to be eligible for funding through the department of Justice to exterminate the scourge of meth production, sale and usage in Native American communities. Enough safeguard measures are built in to avoid any potential misrepresentation of the above legislations. It has been clearly stated in section 2 [a] [4] of the bill , the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance is toothed with power to award grant funds to a state ,territory or Indian tribe to â€Å" explore ,detain and indict individuals â€Å"   involved in illegal meth activities. Further, it does not authorize a grantee state, Indian tribe or state to pursue law enforcement activities that it otherwise has short of jurisdictional authority to pursue. 2.4 PUBLIC LAW 280 Normally, states do not have jurisdiction over the internal legal of the sovereign tribal governments. Under certain circumstances, Congress has extended special exceptions this general principle. Under Public Law 280, six states were given exclusive jurisdiction over the Indian country within the state borders. Thus, states like New York, Kansas have the exclusive right over to prosecute the crime committed within the Indian country as the federal government has ceded its jurisdiction. Federal government ceded their prosecuting authority to states in these states. But it has created unfavorable situations as most states are reluctant and intransigence to cognize crime on Indian reservations seriously. Many state district attorneys are reluctant to exercise their limited resources on Indian crime. Thus, Public Law 280 has resulted in lawlessness in almost all Indian reservations. Ceding the federal authority over Indian territories to states has ended in a lacuna. It is painful to note that even if a state government has inherent authority in a particular Indian region, it sometimes lacks institutional strength to exercise authority in that region. Further, there exists always simmering tension between Indians and state governments. It is to be observed that since Worcester v.Georgia, states have no authority or very little authority over Indian country. The real reason for tension between tribal and state government is the criticism of action of state police department as they always rubbing on the wrong side of the tribal cultural practices. A study conducted by Carole Goldberg Ambrose[2] revealed that relationships between state and tribal are often got off to potholed and sometime unfeasible. Frequently, California tribal members complained that when state police tried to solve the tribal problems, they often failed as they were disrespectful to tribal sovereignty, lacked cultural compassion and always deployed excessive force. Further, if the alleged offence is a violation of generally applicable federal statutes like sedition and mail theft, the federal government is alone having exclusive jurisdiction to try the offence and natives are not exempted from such offence 2.5 OLIPHANT V. SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE’- AN ANALYSIS: In, ‘Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe’ case, Supreme Court held   that as the tribal court lacks inherent jurisdiction to prosecute non-Indians for the felonies committed on Indian jurisdiction and recommended that it is the Congress to decide whether Indians tribes should finally be authorized to try non-Indians . Thus, Supreme Court decision may not be final and binding since Congress retains authority in exercise of its plenary power. Oliphant case centered around the incidents that happened on the Suquamish Reservation located near Port Madison, Washington. Indian tribes had waived all of their land claims in Washington state under the Treaty of Point Elliott which was signed in 1855 and accepted to settle on a 7300 –acre reservation located near Seattle. The tribes adopted a criminal code in 1973 and any infringement of tribal’s criminal code is prosecuted in the Suquamish Indian provisional Court. It is the claim of the tribes that they have jurisdiction to try non-Indians for any violation or infringement in their land. In support of their claim, they have displayed billboards in prominent places at the entrances to the Port Madison Reservation warning the public that entry onto the Reservation would be deemed implied consent to the criminal jurisdiction of the Suquamish tribal court and one may hilarious to note that Suquamish tribal specifically excluded non-Indians from serving on tribal court as juries. Supreme Court had placed the burden of proof on the tribe to substantiate its contention of jurisdiction. The tribe argued that its jurisdiction over non-Indians emerged involuntarily from the Tribe’s retained innate powers of government over the Port Madison Indian Reservation. Tribe has argued that flow of criminal jurisdiction is automatic over all persons on a reservation –Indian or non-Indian and is arising out of a ‘sine qua non ‘of tribal sovereignty. Supreme Court has rejected the argument of tribal claiming inherent jurisdiction on multiple grounds. Supreme Court concluded that Congress had positively expressed its intention not to grant Indian tribes the power to punish non-Indian after thoroughly examining the opinions of attorney generals, history of treaties, legislative history and district court decisions. Supreme Court once again asserted that Congress which is being law making authority is having sole discretion to decide whether the tribal can prosecute non-Indians for felonies in their land. In the Oliphant’s case, Justice Marshall joined by Chief Justice Burger took the opposite view as the Marshall believed that tribes processed the innate jurisdiction over non-Indians and that congressional action was necessary to strip off Indians of that jurisdiction. Oliphant decision was a major set back to Indian community claim of sovereignty in the following respect: It publicized that Indians were toothless to dissuade non-Indians from committing crimes against them. Tribes viewed that Supreme Court decision had indeed handcuffed their law enforcement activities. Tribes viewed the decision as a major blow on their powers to safeguard their own people. Decision culminated to an awkward situation to tribes by restricting their power to judge, prosecute or punish with tribal law and tribal courts, the non-Indians who commit felonies on tribal land. 2.6 DURO V.REINA- AN ANALYSIS: Duro v.Reina is a subsequent case after Oliphant. This case has further minimized the power of the tribal court to punish â€Å"outsiders â€Å", people who are not members of the tribe. Albert Duro was the member of one sect of Indian tribe namely Torres-Maritinez Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians. It was alleged that Duro killed a boy on the Salt River Indian reservation. Salt River Indian tribes attempted to prosecute Duro in their tribal court. The federal district court restrained the Salt River Prima –Maricopa Indian Tribe to prosecute Duro who belongs to Torres tribe. Thus, Supreme Court also concurred the federal district court view and held that Indian tribes did not have jurisdiction over Indians who were members of other Indian tribes. This made the Congress to exercise its plenary power and Supreme Court decision was amended or altered by the Congress through amendment U.S.C 1301 to authorize the tribal courts to exercise â€Å"criminal jurisdiction over all Indian and not just member of Indians. Critic’s view that Supreme Court had crushed the Indian rights is a bit of hypocritical as the Congress can always make use of its plenary power –a-type of legislative veto –to correct the intrinsic relationship as articulated by the Court. 2.7 ANALYSIS OF SURVEY OF U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT: According to survey conducted by Justice Department of U.S., American Indians suffer from certain violent crimes like robbery, rape at a rate twice the national average. About 30,000 crimes of violence are committed against Indians each year. Native Indians complained that their attackers were under the influence of alcohol or meth at a greater than the national average. It is alarming to note that Indians were fatalities of interracial violence at a startling rate of 72% and 91% of sexual assaults against the tribal members. Further, offenders against Indian tribes were about 70% It is to be noted that a crime committed against an Indian by non-Indian which occurs outside of Indian country is subject to state jurisdiction and therefore is not reported in the above statistics. Thus, the above statistics reveal a disturbing picture of crimes against Indians and Indians face a disproportionately higher rate of violent crimes than any other races in U.S.A. For instance, Indian victims are reporting about 30,000 possible violent crimes to police each year and out of this, police could not solve more than 28,000 incidents or about 94% of the crimes reported remain uninvestigated or go unpunished. Further, Indians are also affected by the property crimes and victimless crimes committed by the non-Indians and these were not included in the above statistics since these were of civil nature.   The main reason for such alarming rates of criminal reports are being uninvestigated is mainly due to great distance between federal courts and tribes and overburdened law enforcing department. One of the allegations against Indian judiciary is that Indian courts do not bestow equal justice to non-Indians. For example, in Oliphant case, the Court took note of the fact that non-Indians were excluded from occupying juries’ role in Suquamish.   Thus, a doubt arises whether non-Indian constitutional right to be tried by an Indian jury could deliver unquestionable justice to the accused. The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 ensures basic due process protections to Indians who are tried in tribal courts and to ensure non-Indians offenders rights, the same process of protection can be extended to non-Indians. As such, non-Indians allegation that tribal courts are iniquitous may not hold good. 2.8 POSSIBLE SUGGESTIONS FOR AVOIDING OLIPHANT TYPE OF INCIDENTS IN FUTURE: Federal court is already overburdened with cases like violations under a]Patriotic Act , b]Money Laundering Act 3] RICO 4] Narcotic Offenses 5] Interstate Crimes 6] National Security Offenses 7] Stock Exchange Commission 8] Other type of Crimes .Whereas , offenses committed by non-Indian in tribal areas are of nature of minor offences like 1] reckless or speed driving 2] drunk driving 3] petty assault 4] petty theft 5] Vandalism 6] Littering   7] Parking Violations . Naturally federal prosecutors do not give more importance to these offenses and hence lion’s share of these offenses went unpunished. To instill confidence on tribal community, Congress should seriously think of creating exclusive federal courts which may be designated as â€Å"special courts â€Å" for prosecuting offenses committed on tribal by non-Indians in tribal areas.   For instance , in the District of North Dakota , Chief Judge Rodney Webb to address the problem faced   by Indians against felonies committed by non-Indians held meetings with the officials for their prosecution As per ICRA [Indian Civil Rights Act], Indian tribes may not impose any penalty or punishment which is longer than for a term of one year and a fine of $ 5000 or both. This clearly demonstrate that tribal courts have limited authority to try minor offenses like less serious felonies or misdemeanors there by leaving serious crimes to the federal government . Further, there is a misconception among non-Indians that tribal courts are not like Anglo-American tribunals. It is pertinent to note the remarks made by Justice Rehnquist in Oliphant that â€Å"some Indian trial court systems have become progressively much classy and resemble in many ways their state counter parts†. Hence, non-Indians should be properly educated and Congress should see that they are convinced by drafting a new legislation extending tribal courts power to prosecute non-Indians within the parameters designed by the Congress in this regard. One another remedy is to depute special law enforcement officer to investigate or prosecute the crime. A â€Å"special assistant district attorney â€Å"may be appointed to represent the district attorney for a particular case or a special investigating officer may be deputed to execute restricted law enforcement functions. Thus, the power to deputize is also known as a statutory grant. A statutory grant is having inherent power to specially deputize any higher officials. The deputization will be more advantageous as it would satisfy the interest of the all concerned including tribal and non-Indian offenders though the offenders will be punished under federal or state laws not under the tribal laws. CONCLUSION: De-facto immunity is being used as scapegoat by non-Indian offenders against Indians. It is really a shame that American judicial system is dissuading Indians to punish the non-Indian offenders who have committed felony in their lands under tribal criminal laws. It is real predicament that majority of the crimes against Indians by non-Indians escape punishment. The Oliphant v Suquamish Indian Tribe case is a severe blow to the Indian legitimate rights which Congress should come forward to redress. Congress should exercise its plenary power as it had done in Supreme Court decision in Duro v.Reina which was later amended or altered by the Congress through amendment U.S.C 1301 to authorize the tribal courts to exercise â€Å"criminal jurisdiction over all Indian and not just member of Indians. Further , to instill confidence on tribal community, Congress should seriously think of creating exclusive federal courts which may be designated as â€Å"special courts â€Å" for prosecuting offenses committed on tribal by non-Indians in tribal areas. One another remedy is to depute special law enforcement officer to investigate or prosecute the crime. The deputization will be more advantageous as it would satisfy the interest of the all concerned including tribal and non-Indian offenders though the offenders will be punished under federal or state laws not under the tribal laws. Deputization will assimilate all law enforcement agencies together to work unitedly.   Deputization is the need of the hour as it will bring all the parties involved under a single umbrella within the current jurisdictional. Further, as in the case of military courts which do not have jurisdiction to prosecute the civilians who have infringed military’s interest and in such cases, â€Å"special assistant United States attorneys† [SAUSA’s] have the authority to prosecute such violators who have committed crimes against military personnel and property. The same strategy can be followed in the tribal cases also. Thus, the department should authorize Indian prosecutors to sue in the federal courts for the crimes committed by the non-Indians within Indian country. BIBILIOGRAPHY Chiu, Elaine M. Culture as Justification, Not Excuse. American Criminal Law Review 43, no. 4 (2006): 1317+. Christofferson, Carla. Tribal Courts Failure to Protect Native American Women: A Reevaluation of the Indian Civil Rights Act. Yale Law Journal 101, no. 1 (1991): 169-185. Dutton, Bertha P. American Indians of the Southwest. Revised ed. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1983. French, Laurence Armand. Addictions and Native Americans. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2000. Griffiths, Curt Taylor. Natives and Criminal Justice Policy: the Case of Native Policing. Canadian Journal of Criminology 26, no. 2 (1984): 147-160. Henderson, Dwight F. Congress, Courts, and Criminals: The Development of Federal Criminal Law, 1801-1829. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985. Johansen, Bruce Elliott, ed. The Encyclopedia of Native American Legal Tradition. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1998. La Prairie, Carol. Aboriginal Over-Representation in the Criminal Justice System: A Tale of Nine Cities. Canadian Journal of Criminology 44, no. 2 (2002): 181+. Lawson, Paul E. When States Attorneys General Write Books on Native American Law: A Case Study of Spaeths American Indian Law Desk book. American Indian Quarterly 19, no. 2 (1995): 229-236. Nielsen, Marianne O. and Robert A. Silverman, eds. Native Americans, Crime, and Justice. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996 Nourse, V.F. Reconceptualizing Criminal Law Defenses. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 151, no. 5 (2003): 1691+. Parman, Donald Lee. Indians and the American West in the Twentieth Century. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1994. Pevar, Stephen L. The Rights of Indians and Tribes: The Basic ACLU Guide to Indian and Tribal Rights. 2nd ed. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992. Prucha, Francis Paul. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1984. Ramirez, Deborah A. A Brief Historical Overview of the Use of the Mixed Jury. American Criminal Law Review 31, no. 4 (1994): 1213-1224. [1] â€Å"Indian Wants Jurisdiction to Combat Terrorism Threat â€Å", Washington Times, Jan 26, 2004. [2] Carole Goldberg –Ambrose, â€Å"Public Law 280 and the problem of Lawlessness in California Indian Country, 44 UCLA L.Rev. 1405 [1997].

War in Iraq :: war, Iraq, USA,

1. There was very little evidence and the United States acted prematurely. The evidence itself is confusing and somewhat misleading. As we look on the invasion many Americans were very enthusiastic about going to war with Iraq. However, we’re not trying to think about why we were not there or trying to justify other than speculate the following reasons. Did Iraq have weapons of mass destruction or was the United States to find about their military power? Possibly, the United States was trying to eliminate Saddam and his regime to promote democracy and peace. I think because of the 9/11 tragedy and maybe control of the oil resources gave the United States a reason to act like they did. 2. The approval rate of other countries is justified because no one likes a bully! And frankly the United States has been fitting this description all too well by showing countries that if you mess the United States your messing with the bull. President Bush proved this by making a 48 hour notice and invading Iraq exactly on the 48 hour mark. This shows other countries that the United States means business. If I could I would love to live in another country such as Australia. I believe that my view of American politics would drastically change! Maybe for the better because I would not be under the hammer so to speak. Indirectly, if American politics did not include the country I was living in. I would not take the time to care. 3. I have two opinions of this one Britain being an ally it should be there good pleasure to help in any way to fight the war in Iraq. Because the United States I feel would have done the same for Britain. That is just good relations between allied countries. If Britain did not help the United States they probably would not consider Britain to be a good ally to keep relations going like they have. My second opinion is that Britain should have not got involved with the United States against Iraq. For the simple fact, a big majority of Muslims lives there. Thereby making a terrorist attack more eminent. Britain should have negotiated a term to help the United States only in a real emergency.

Botulism & hospitalization

Microbial intoxication refers to the diseases followed by ingestion of toxins produced by pathogens outside the body. Botulism is a water-borne and food-borne disease transmitted in foods (Englelkirk & Duebn-Engelkirk, 2007). Patients with botulism are required to prolonged hospitalization and intensive care (Evans & Brachman, 1998). Although this disease is rare, both animals and humans can be affected which can cause flaccid muscle weakness o even death (Lewis, Knight, Lewis, & Lewis, 1995). In the early human history, it was speculated that our prehistoric ancestors suffered also from botulism.They usually preserved extra meat by wrapping it animal skins and animal organs then smoked it and buried underneath the ground which served as a basic refrigerator, allowing the meat to freeze (Rosaler, 2003). The history if first botulism outbreak happened on 1793 in Wildbad, Germany from consumption of a favorite local dish—blood sausages (Fig. 1). The blood sausages were prepared from washing out the pig intestines, then blood and various spices are stuffed in. Both ends are tied, boiled in water, smoked, and stored for weeks at room temperature.Usually, the people who ate it did not have effect but after people share it they became sick. Most of them vomited, some partially paralyzed, and speech thickened. Later, there were six people dead. Justinus Kerner, the local medical officer and physician, was sent to find out the cause of the incident. However, Kerner was not able to identify the cause of deaths from eating blood sausages. Nevertheless, he was able to note significant observations such as blood sausages with air pockets did not become poisonous and the sausages in large casings are likely to be poisonous.He conducted a dangerous experiment by injecting the sausage fluid, wurstgift, into his own body (Rosaler, 2003). Until then, he was able to observe the symptoms similar to the patients. The disease was named â€Å"Kerner’s disease† f or many years. He conducted follow up experiments on various cases food poisoning and published his findings. Aside from food-borne and water-borne, botulism can also be wound botulism when toxins are produced from the wound that is infected with the bacteria Clostridium botulinum (Fig. 2).The bacteria is a gram positive spore-forming bacilli that is invasive and toxin mediated (Shimeld, 1999). This rod-shaped bacteria is often found in soil where there is low-oxygen forming spores that allow it to survive in dormant state. People infected with botulism usually have the symptoms of blurred vision, difficulty in swallowing, and muscle weakness; while infants with botulism appear lethargic, constipated, weak cry and muscle tone which are all signs of muscle paralysis that is caused by the bacterial toxin. The paralysis can progress in the arms, legs, and respiratory muscles if untreated.On the other hand, in food botulism, symptoms appear as early after six hours to thirty-six hours a nd the latest is ten hours (Bullock, Haddow, & Coppola, 2006). In general there are seven forms of botulism coded as types A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. These forms are grouped if they are proteoluytic. In Group I is proteolytic which includes types A, B, or F toxins. Group II is non-proteolytic which includes types B, E, or F toxins. Group III is also non-proteolytic which includes types C or D toxins. Lastly, the Groupd IV is also non-proteolytic and non-saccharolytic including G toxin.Among the four groups, Groups I and II cause botulism in humans while Group III causes botulism in birds and animals. Group IV, on the other hand, are very rare and does not affect humans. Proteolytic strains normally live in minima temperatures of growth which is 12 °C or above, while the non-proteolytic can live to a temperature as low as 3. 3 °C (Wilkinson & Gould, 1996). Figure 2 Clostridium botulinum. The pale bodies are the spores (Sebaiha et al. 2007) C. botulinum lives as dormant spore or a s cavenger in decaying animal materials in soil but it has no specific mechanism to evade human defenses.The variants of each single species are connected because of the deadly toxin. For example, some of the genes found in C. botulinum are not found in other sequence. It can be easily destroyed by a toxin in some cases. However, the toxins never stop poisoning killing its preys. It has the ability to hide and hibernate through dormant spores when environment is harsh. This bacteria uses many strategies to increase its probability of survival (Sebaiha, Peck, Minton, & Thomson, 2007). In diagnosing botulism, patient’s history and physical examination is taken into consideration but these are not enough to identify botulism.Diseases such as Guillain-Barre syndrome, stroke, and myasthenia gravis appear to be similar with botulism. Tests such as brain scan, spinal fluid examination, electromyography, or Tensilon test for myasthenia gravis are conducted in order to diagnose which di sease. Another way of diagnosis is by injecting placing botulinum toxin to the patient’ serum or stool, then injecting it to a mice and observe for relevant symptoms; while other test of stool can be conducted by some state health department laboratories and at CDC (Bullock et al. , 2006).Otherwise, the patients should undergo passive immunization which has horse serum with anti-A, B, and E toxins. There is also trivalent antitoxin available in CDC, Atlanta and botulism toxoid (Evans & Brachman, 1998). Cases of botulism vary depending on the types of botulism toxin. If there is respiratory failure and paralysis, the patient needs to be in ventilator for weeks and intensive medical care and the paralysis will improve. Respiratory failure can cause death but there is an antitoxin which can block the reaction of toxins on food-borne and wound botulism.The source on the wound, however, should be removed surgically. The recovery can take weeks nevertheless the progress of the dise ase will be prevented. Moreover, the death cases of botulism from the past fifty years decreased from 50% to 8%. Among those who survived poisoning, patients may experience fatigue and shortness of breathe that could last for years thus therapy is required (Bullock et al. , 2006). There are ways to prevent botulism. The source of most food-borne botulism is home-canned goods.Other sources can be from chopped garlic in oil, chili peppers, tomatoes, aluminum foil-wrapped potatoes (improperly cooked), and home canned/fermented fish. Hygienic procedures are necessary in order to prevent contamination especially in home canning and that oils with herbs and garlic should be refrigerated; baked potatoes wrapped in aluminum foil should be kept hot before serving or refrigerated; home-canned goods should be boiled before eating sine the botulism toxin will destroyed in high temperatures, and children below one year should not be fed with honey since Clostridium botulinum spores are present i n honey.There are public education about botulism prevention and there are also experts on botulism available for consultancy in state health departments and CD (Bullock et al. , 2006). In the United States, the average botulism case is 110 every year were majority of these cases are infant botulism (72%). It is followed by followed by food-borne which is 25% and the rest are wound botulism. Outbreaks are usually caused by eating contaminated home-canned goods (Bullock et al. , 2006). Botulism outbreaks, on the other hand, are rare in tropical regions.Most occurred in temperate and colder regions during spring and winter seasons in the northern hemisphere such as Alaska, Canada, United States, Poland, United kingdom, Russia, Iran, and China (Doyle, Steinhart, & Cochrane, 1994). The largest botulism outbreak in the United States in the last 25 years caused 30 cases where four were in severe conditions. The cause was from a potato-based dip that were wrapped in aluminum foil and store d in ambient temperature (Fratarnico, Bhunia, & Smith, 2005). References Bullock, J. A. , Haddow, G. D. , & Coppola, D.P. (2006). Introduction to Homeland Security. Retrieved 31 May 2008, from http://books. google. com/books? id=yHpkkc3ZqlMC Doyle, M. e. , Steinhart, C. E. , & Cochrane, B. A. (1994). Food Safety 1994. Retrieved 31 May 2008, from http://books. google. com/books? id=S28jeel2VfUC Englelkirk, P. G. , & Duebn-Engelkirk, J. (2007). Laboratory Analysis of Infectious Diseases. Retrieved 31 May 2008, from http://books. google. com/books? id=RfjRLEVax1QC Evans, A. S. , & Brachman, P. S. (1998). Bacterial Infections of Human: Epidemiology and Control.Retrieved 31 may 2008, from http://books. google. com/books? id=xADJBP7iqRwC Fratarnico, P. M. , Bhunia, A. K. , & Smith, J. L. (2005). Foodborne Pathogens: Microbiology and Molecular Biology. Retrieved 31 May 2008, from http://books. google. com/books? id=-HNavPPs-JoC Lewis, L. D. , Knight, A. , Lewis, B. , & Lewis, C. (1995). Eq uine Clinical Nutrition: Feeding and Care. Retrieved 31 May 2008, from http://books. google. com/books? id=vpuTp_vwsegC Rosaler, M. (2003). Botulism. Retrieved 31 may 2008, from http://books. google.com/books? id=7srrKGDkswkC Sebaiha, M. , Peck, M. W. , Minton, N. P. , & Thomson, N. R. (2007). Genome sequence of a proteolytic (Group I) Clostridium botulinum strain Hall A and comparative analysis of the clostridial genomes. Genome Research. Shimeld, L. A. (1999). Essentials of Diagnostic Microbiology. Retrieved 31 May 2008, from http://books. google. com/books? id=8Rn47SNdbYAC Wilkinson, V. M. , & Gould, G. W. (1996). Food Irradiation: A Reference Guide. Retrieved 31 May 2008, from http://books. google. com/books? id=FpIpsqs7CRUC

Grace, Gods Most Important Gift to Man Other than Life

Grace is God’s most important gift to man other than life that is. Grace is freely given but was so costly to God to give. The first taste of Grace was when God gave His own beloved son to die for the sins of the world. Jesus did not deserve to die upon the cross that day so many years ago. He was sinless. Yet honoring His Father’s wishes He was tortured and then made to die upon the cross like the thief beside Him. Three days later God raised Him to a resurrected life and Jesus sits at His right side even today. The whole reason that Jesus was tortured the way He was is that He alone bore all the sins from each of us that day. He was God’s gift to us, in a sense Jesus was grace poured out on us all. Many theologians have discussed†¦show more content†¦In his book The Cost of Discipleship, Bonhoeffer tells the tale of Peter being called by Jesus to follow Him. When Jesus first calls to Peter to follow it is the first words spoken to him. The second time was after the crucifixion of Christ, the Risen Lord found Peter at the same place He had first found him. Both times Peter leaves behind what he is doing and followed (Bonhoeffer 45) (Vanderhart). This is what Bonhoeffer is telling us what we must do daily. It is to leave what we are wanting to do and follow His Word. It means giving up what we know to be wrong according to the Word of God and striving to show that we do love God with all of our hearts by following what He wants for us. Bonhoeffer told us what we should do in accepting grace and John Wesley gave us the means by which to follow God’s word. He explained what happens after we decide to go after the costly grace. He was the one, in a sense, to break it down into layman’s terms. He saw what had happened with secularization of the Church like Bonhoeffer did but took costly grace and made it understandable as to what the steps to gain that costly grace were. Wesley gave Christians an explanation of what prevenient grace is. This is the grace that God gives even before we accept Him. The grace that begins softening the heart to be prepared for faith.Show MoreRelatedGrace And Law Theological Reflection Essay1126 Words   |  5 PagesGrace and Law Theological Reflection This paper is my attempt to articulate the relationship between God’s grace and God’s law as it applies to Christian ethics in four areas. Jesus’ relationship to the law and the Christian believer’s relationship to the law. Jesus himself told us his relationship to the law. In Matthew 5:17 he stated, â€Å"Don t even begin to think that I have come to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I haven t come to do away with them but to fulfill them.† (CEB) The OldRead MoreReflection Paper : Word And Grace1237 Words   |  5 PagesReflection Paper – Word and Grace I. Introduction Two of the greatest things we have from God are the Word and grace. These things that commonly define Christianity as a whole, a religion based on salvation by the grace of God, not by works as said in Ephesians 2:8-9 â€Å"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.† (NIV) We learns things like this and a lot more from the Word, which is the BibleRead MoreGods Grace935 Words   |  4 Pagesmany have memorized it. And yet, many Christians do not fully understand what the passage actually means. They know they have been saved by grace through faith. That is, they know that their sinful nature separated them from God, who is holy (the opposite of sinful), and that they therefore were dead in their sins, unable to have peace with God. In other words, the payment for sin is death - eternal separation from God. They also realize that they could not make peace with God by trying toRead MoreBiblical Worldviews Of Romans And The Romans1067 Words   |  5 Pagesworldviews of Romans 1-8 and my viewed opinions of all of the subject matters. On the other hand, I’ll aim to examine the sins committed by the Romans during the era of Paul’s generation and how in my opinion, these sins will continue to pledged to today’s society. Moreover, the Biblical Worldviews of the book of Romans illustrate God’s devotion to our daily lives. However, everybody’s worldwide as they see life, and that issue that surrounds them varies because of their beliefs, culture, and upbringingsRead MoreThe Foundational Components Of Christianity1691 Words   |  7 Pagesmany definitions and opinions on what it means to be a Christian. Some think it is their heritage and they were automatically born a Christian. Others describe it as their social duty to be religious and attend church, and still others say they hav e a personal relationship with Jesus as their savior. With so many definitions floating around it is important to look at the cornerstones of Christianity and what exactly it entails. This paper will examine the foundational components of Christianity, anRead MoreThe Faith Of The Gospel1572 Words   |  7 Pagesgives Adam instructions and the man carries them out (Diffey, para. 20). It is a part of human nature to work and to care for the earth (CWV 101 Lecture 3, 2015). All throughout time and culture, humans have included earth as a part of their lives by calling it Mother Earth. People have lived knowing the importance of the earth and caring for it (Stattler, p. 18). While we are not doing this to the fullness of our potential, we still inherently know it is important. The root cause of human problemsRead MoreUnderstanding Sanctification And Its Impact On God s Life1572 Words   |  7 Pagesthe culminating phase of salvation and is both a gift of God the Son of His imputed rig hteousness and the gracious work of the Holy Spirit. Additionally though according to Thorsen, it is also the task of regenerated believers to â€Å"strive to express God’s love in their experiences† (Thorsen, 2010, p. 186). Understanding sanctification is important as it impacts one’s view on God’s expectations for holiness and the way Believers minister to others. Colossians 1:10-11 says that as we grow in theRead MoreChristian Worldview From Other Worldviews1475 Words   |  6 Pageslove to answer your questions regarding Christianity, and I have so much respect for your desire to seek truth. Although there are many things that separate the Christian worldview from other worldviews, I will only discuss the three that I believe are the most important. Specifically, the belief in grace rather than works as the means for salvation, the belief in the hypostatic union, and the belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I know some of these terms are co nfusing, so I will be sure toRead MoreCalvin and Human Freedom1700 Words   |  7 Pageswhich it leads. Throughout most of time, religion has taken the reigns of showing humans the road to salvation, externally, by means of scripture, which requires faith. Yet in the past, there have been times when the powers of evil have inevitably hijacked religion, turning those who have witnessed or experienced this treachery against external values based on faith, but rather internally based values by means of philosophical thought and reasoning through God’s gift of grace. Calvin’s view on an externalRead MoreReflecting On The First Ideology Of Man With A Very Innovative Style1386 Words   |  6 PagesReflecting on Life One of the most influential characters known to man, was the one who started our very existence. This prominent character accomplished the first ideology of man with a very innovative style. This recorded aspect is very important because it shows us how Adam relates to the people and God as well. Reflecting back on Adam’s actions, provides us with a clear example of how we should relate to both God and others. Jeremiah 29:11 states, â€Å"For I know the plans I have for you, declares