Advanced

{"id":11487424396,"title":"Course #540- Ethics: Supreme Court, 1st Amendment \u0026 Conflicts of Interest - CD","handle":"course-540-ethics-supreme-court-1st-amendment-conflicts-of-interest-cd","description":"\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpeaker: Curtis Howard\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCourse 540\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1 hour MCLE Ethics Credit\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThis course covers the Supreme Court case of Commission on Ethics vs. Carrigan, docket No 10-568. Question: Does the supreme court subject state restrictions on voting by elected officials to strict scrutiny? \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. The 1st Amendment does not subject state restrictions on voting by elected officials to strict scrutiny\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. The Nevada Ethics in Government Law is not unconstitutionally overbroad\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Restrictions upon legislators' voting rights are restrictions upon their speech (Justice Alito)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEvaluate the oral arguments for Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIdentify several ethical dilemmas the Supreme Court Justices must have faced when considering the verdict for this case\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMr. Howard is a Criminal Defense Attorney in Sacramento, California, at the \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLaw Office of Curtis L. Howard JR.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e","published_at":"2016-01-19T11:44:00-08:00","created_at":"2017-08-07T11:47:07-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"CD's","tags":["advanced","cds","constitutional-law","credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","ethics","single-course","supreme-court"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43473917388,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #540- Ethics: Supreme Court, 1st Amendment \u0026 Conflicts of Interest - CD","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_86cd71c2-41f7-477e-aa60-de502f2eba9c.png?v=1502131627"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_86cd71c2-41f7-477e-aa60-de502f2eba9c.png?v=1502131627","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":436891091023,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":0.588,"height":306,"width":180,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_86cd71c2-41f7-477e-aa60-de502f2eba9c.png?v=1502131627"},"aspect_ratio":0.588,"height":306,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_86cd71c2-41f7-477e-aa60-de502f2eba9c.png?v=1502131627","width":180}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpeaker: Curtis Howard\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCourse 540\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1 hour MCLE Ethics Credit\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThis course covers the Supreme Court case of Commission on Ethics vs. Carrigan, docket No 10-568. Question: Does the supreme court subject state restrictions on voting by elected officials to strict scrutiny? \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. The 1st Amendment does not subject state restrictions on voting by elected officials to strict scrutiny\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. The Nevada Ethics in Government Law is not unconstitutionally overbroad\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Restrictions upon legislators' voting rights are restrictions upon their speech (Justice Alito)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEvaluate the oral arguments for Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIdentify several ethical dilemmas the Supreme Court Justices must have faced when considering the verdict for this case\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMr. Howard is a Criminal Defense Attorney in Sacramento, California, at the \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLaw Office of Curtis L. Howard JR.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e"}

{"id":4409083014,"title":"Course #540- Ethics: Supreme Court, 1st Amendment \u0026 Conflicts of Interest - webinar","handle":"ethics-supreme-court-1st-amendment-conflicts-of-interest","description":"\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpeaker: Curtis Howard\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCourse 540\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1 hour MCLE Ethics Credit\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThis course covers the Supreme Court case of Commission on Ethics vs. Carrigan, docket No 10-568. Question: Does the supreme court subject state restrictions on voting by elected officials to strict scrutiny? \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. The 1st Amendment does not subject state restrictions on voting by elected officials to strict scrutiny\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. The Nevada Ethics in Government Law is not unconstitutionally overbroad\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Restrictions upon legislators' voting rights are restrictions upon their speech (Justice Alito)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEvaluate the oral arguments for Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIdentify several ethical dilemmas the Supreme Court Justices must have faced when considering the verdict for this case\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMr. Howard is a Criminal Defense Attorney in Sacramento, California, at the \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLaw Office of Curtis L. Howard JR.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e","published_at":"2016-01-19T11:44:00-08:00","created_at":"2016-01-19T11:46:45-08:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"Webinar","tags":["advanced","constitutional-law","credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","ethics","single-course","supreme-court","webinar"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":14354436934,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #540- Ethics: Supreme Court, 1st Amendment \u0026 Conflicts of Interest - webinar","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_0e965986-b2a4-46bb-93b6-cca75696dee5.png?v=1502131480"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_0e965986-b2a4-46bb-93b6-cca75696dee5.png?v=1502131480","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":64014680143,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":0.588,"height":306,"width":180,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_0e965986-b2a4-46bb-93b6-cca75696dee5.png?v=1502131480"},"aspect_ratio":0.588,"height":306,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_0e965986-b2a4-46bb-93b6-cca75696dee5.png?v=1502131480","width":180}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpeaker: Curtis Howard\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCourse 540\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1 hour MCLE Ethics Credit\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThis course covers the Supreme Court case of Commission on Ethics vs. Carrigan, docket No 10-568. Question: Does the supreme court subject state restrictions on voting by elected officials to strict scrutiny? \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. The 1st Amendment does not subject state restrictions on voting by elected officials to strict scrutiny\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. The Nevada Ethics in Government Law is not unconstitutionally overbroad\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Restrictions upon legislators' voting rights are restrictions upon their speech (Justice Alito)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEvaluate the oral arguments for Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIdentify several ethical dilemmas the Supreme Court Justices must have faced when considering the verdict for this case\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMr. Howard is a Criminal Defense Attorney in Sacramento, California, at the \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLaw Office of Curtis L. Howard JR.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e"}

{"id":11487967820,"title":"Course #550- Supreme Court: Same Sex Marriage \u0026 14th Amendment - CD -","handle":"course-550-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-14th-amendment-cd","description":"\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Curtis Howard, JD\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 550\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eUS Supreme Court Case Obergefell vs Hodges Docket 14-556 (2014). \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e1. The case argued that the states' statutes violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, and one group of plaintiffs also brought claims under the Civil Rights Act\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e2. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the trial court and held that the states bans on same sex marriage and refusal to recognize marriages performed in other states did not violate the courts 14th Amendment rights or equal protection and due process\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eExamine the oral arguments for Obergefell v Hodges\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the question: Does the 14th amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between 2 people of the same sex that was legally licensed in another state?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMr. Howard is a Criminal Defense Attorney in Sacramento, California\u003cstrong\u003e, \u003c\/strong\u003eat the Law Office of Curtis L. Howard JR.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e","published_at":"2015-01-31T13:53:00-08:00","created_at":"2017-08-07T14:43:10-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"CD's","tags":["advanced","cds","constitutional-law","credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","single-course","supreme-court"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43481285516,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"550 Series Webinar","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #550- Supreme Court: Same Sex Marriage \u0026 14th Amendment - CD -","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_92d0c158-2ea0-4e2f-be72-876f86d691ae.png?v=1502142190"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_92d0c158-2ea0-4e2f-be72-876f86d691ae.png?v=1502142190","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":437110505551,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":0.588,"height":306,"width":180,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_92d0c158-2ea0-4e2f-be72-876f86d691ae.png?v=1502142190"},"aspect_ratio":0.588,"height":306,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_92d0c158-2ea0-4e2f-be72-876f86d691ae.png?v=1502142190","width":180}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Curtis Howard, JD\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 550\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eUS Supreme Court Case Obergefell vs Hodges Docket 14-556 (2014). \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e1. The case argued that the states' statutes violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, and one group of plaintiffs also brought claims under the Civil Rights Act\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e2. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the trial court and held that the states bans on same sex marriage and refusal to recognize marriages performed in other states did not violate the courts 14th Amendment rights or equal protection and due process\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eExamine the oral arguments for Obergefell v Hodges\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the question: Does the 14th amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between 2 people of the same sex that was legally licensed in another state?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMr. Howard is a Criminal Defense Attorney in Sacramento, California\u003cstrong\u003e, \u003c\/strong\u003eat the Law Office of Curtis L. Howard JR.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e"}

{"id":740754371,"title":"Course #550- Supreme Court: Same Sex Marriage \u0026 14th Amendment - webinar","handle":"course-550-ethics-supreme-court-case-same-sex-marriage-14th-amendment-obergefell-vs-hodges-part-ii","description":"\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Curtis Howard, JD\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 550\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eUS Supreme Court Case Obergefell vs Hodges Docket 14-556 (2014). \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e1. The case argued that the states' statutes violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, and one group of plaintiffs also brought claims under the Civil Rights Act\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e2. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the trial court and held that the states bans on same sex marriage and refusal to recognize marriages performed in other states did not violate the courts 14th Amendment rights or equal protection and due process\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eExamine the oral arguments for Obergefell v Hodges\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the question: Does the 14th amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between 2 people of the same sex that was legally licensed in another state?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMr. Howard is a Criminal Defense Attorney in Sacramento, California\u003cstrong\u003e, \u003c\/strong\u003eat the Law Office of Curtis L. Howard JR.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e","published_at":"2015-01-31T13:53:00-08:00","created_at":"2015-06-01T15:04:27-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"Webinar","tags":["advanced","constitutional-law","credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","single-course","supreme-court","webinar"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":2108243779,"title":"aaron cle","option1":"aaron cle","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"550 Series Webinar","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #550- Supreme Court: Same Sex Marriage \u0026 14th Amendment - webinar - aaron cle","public_title":"aaron cle","options":["aaron cle"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":0,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_d63eb766-8431-4e0d-9803-b763a5800a03.png?v=1502141948"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_d63eb766-8431-4e0d-9803-b763a5800a03.png?v=1502141948","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":17312645199,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":0.588,"height":306,"width":180,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_d63eb766-8431-4e0d-9803-b763a5800a03.png?v=1502141948"},"aspect_ratio":0.588,"height":306,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_d63eb766-8431-4e0d-9803-b763a5800a03.png?v=1502141948","width":180}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Curtis Howard, JD\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 550\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eUS Supreme Court Case Obergefell vs Hodges Docket 14-556 (2014). \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e1. The case argued that the states' statutes violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, and one group of plaintiffs also brought claims under the Civil Rights Act\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e2. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the trial court and held that the states bans on same sex marriage and refusal to recognize marriages performed in other states did not violate the courts 14th Amendment rights or equal protection and due process\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eExamine the oral arguments for Obergefell v Hodges\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the question: Does the 14th amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between 2 people of the same sex that was legally licensed in another state?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMr. Howard is a Criminal Defense Attorney in Sacramento, California\u003cstrong\u003e, \u003c\/strong\u003eat the Law Office of Curtis L. Howard JR.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e"}