Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded. Free will is linked to the concepts of responsibility, guilt and other judgements which apply only to actions that are chosen, it is connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion and prohibition. Traditionally, only actions that are willed are seen as deserving credit or blame. There are numerous different concerns about threats to the possibility of free will, varying by how it is conceived, a matter of some debate; some conceive free will to be the capacity to make choices in which the outcome has not been determined by past events. Determinism suggests that only one course of events is possible, inconsistent with the existence of free will thus conceived; this problem has been identified in ancient Greek philosophy and remains a major focus of philosophical debate. This view that conceives free will to be incompatible with determinism is called incompatibilism and encompasses both metaphysical libertarianism, the claim that determinism is false and thus free will is at least possible, hard determinism, the claim that determinism is true and thus free will is not possible.
It encompasses hard incompatibilism, which holds not only determinism but its negation to be incompatible with free will and thus free will to be impossible whatever the case may be regarding determinism. In contrast, compatibilists hold; some compatibilists hold that determinism is necessary for free will, arguing that choice involves preference for one course of action over another, requiring a sense of how choices will turn out. Compatibilists thus consider the debate between libertarians and hard determinists over free will vs determinism a false dilemma. Different compatibilists offer different definitions of what "free will" means and find different types of constraints to be relevant to the issue. Classical compatibilists considered free will nothing more than freedom of action, considering one free of will if, had one counterfactually wanted to do otherwise, one could have done otherwise without physical impediment. Contemporary compatibilists instead identify free will as a psychological capacity, such as to direct one's behavior in a way responsive to reason, there are still further different conceptions of free will, each with their own concerns, sharing only the common feature of not finding the possibility of determinism a threat to the possibility of free will.
The underlying questions are whether we have control over our actions, if so, what sort of control, to what extent. These questions predate the early Greek stoics, some modern philosophers lament the lack of progress over all these centuries. On one hand, humans have a strong sense of freedom, which leads us to believe that we have free will. On the other hand, an intuitive feeling of free will could be mistaken, it is difficult to reconcile the intuitive evidence that conscious decisions are causally effective with the view that the physical world can be explained to operate by physical law. The conflict between intuitively felt freedom and natural law arises when either causal closure or physical determinism is asserted. With causal closure, no physical event has a cause outside the physical domain, with physical determinism, the future is determined by preceding events; the puzzle of reconciling'free will' with a deterministic universe is known as the problem of free will or sometimes referred to as the dilemma of determinism.
This dilemma leads to a moral dilemma as well: the question of how to assign responsibility for actions if they are caused by past events. Compatibilists maintain. Classical compatibilists have addressed the dilemma of free will by arguing that free will holds as long as we are not externally constrained or coerced. Modern compatibilists make a distinction between freedom of will and freedom of action, that is, separating freedom of choice from the freedom to enact it. Given that humans all experience a sense of free will, some modern compatibilists think it is necessary to accommodate this intuition. Compatibilists associate freedom of will with the ability to make rational decisions. A different approach to the dilemma is that of incompatibilists, that if the world is deterministic our feeling that we are free to choose an action is an illusion. Metaphysical libertarianism is the form of incompatibilism which posits that determinism is false and free will is possible; this view is associated with non-materialist constructions, including both traditional dualism, as well as models supporting more minimal criteria.
Yet with physical indeterminism, arguments have been made against libertarianism in that it is difficult to assign Origination. Free will here is predominantly treated with respect to physical determinism in the strict sense of nomological determinism, although other forms of determinism are relevant to free will. For example and theological determinism challenge metaphysical libertarianism with ideas of destiny and fate, biological and psychological determinism feed the development of compatibilist models. Separate classes of compatibilism and incompatibilism may be formed to represent these. Below are the classic arguments bearing upon its underpinnings. Incompatibilism is the position that free will and determinism are logically incomp
Universal jurisdiction allows states or international organizations to claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused person regardless of where the alleged crime was committed, regardless of the accused's nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting entity. Crimes prosecuted under universal jurisdiction are considered crimes against all, too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage; the concept of universal jurisdiction is therefore linked to the idea that some international norms are erga omnes, or owed to the entire world community, as well as the concept of jus cogens – that certain international law obligations are binding on all states. According to Amnesty International, a proponent of universal jurisdiction, certain crimes pose so serious a threat to the international community as a whole that states have a logical and moral duty to prosecute an individual responsible. Opponents such as Henry Kissinger, who himself was called to give testimony about the US Government's Operation Condor in a Spanish court, argue that universal jurisdiction is a breach of each state's sovereignty: all states being equal in sovereignty, as affirmed by the United Nations Charter, "idespread agreement that human rights violations and crimes against humanity must be prosecuted has hindered active consideration of the proper role of international courts.
Universal jurisdiction risks creating universal tyranny – that of judges." According to Kissinger, as a practical matter, since any number of states could set up such universal jurisdiction tribunals, the process could degenerate into politically driven show trials to attempt to place a quasi-judicial stamp on a state's enemies or opponents. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1674, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 28 April 2006, "Reaffirm the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity" and commits the Security Council to action to protect civilians in armed conflict; the Institutes of Justinian, echoing the Commentaries of Gaius, says that "All nations... are governed by their own particular laws, by those laws which are common to all, natural Reason appoints for all mankind." Expanding on the classical understanding of universal law accessible by reason, in the seventeenth century, the Dutch jurist Grotius laid the foundations for universal jurisdiction in modern international law, promulgating in his De Jure Pradae and De jure belli ac pacis the Enlightenment view that there are universal principles of right and wrong.
At about the same time, international law came to recognize the analogous concept of hostes humani generis: pirates and similar outlaws whose crimes were committed outside the territory of any state. The notion that heads of state and senior public officials should be treated like pirates or outlaws before the global bar of justice is, according to Henry Kissinger, a new gloss on this old concept. From these premises, representing the Enlightenment belief in trans-territorial, trans-cultural standards of right and wrong, derives universal jurisdiction; the most notable and influential precedent for universal jurisdiction were the mid-20th century Nuremberg Trials. U. S. Justice Robert H. Jackson chief prosecutor, famously stated that an International Military Tribunal enforcing universal principles of right and wrong could prosecute acts without a particular geographic location, Nazi "crimes against the peace of the world"—even if the acts were legal at the time in Fascist Germany. Indeed, one charge was Nazi law itself became law distorted into a bludgeon of oppression.
The Nuremberg trials supposed universal standards by which one nation's laws, acts of its officials, can be judged. On the other hand at the time the Nuremberg trials appeared to be victor's justice, revenge papered over with legal simulcra. US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone remarked that his colleague Justice Jackson acting as Nuremberg Chief prosecutor was "conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg. I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law; this is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas."Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, argues that universal jurisdiction allowed Israel to try Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1961. Roth argues that clauses in treaties such as the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the United Nations Convention Against Torture of 1984, which requires signatory states to pass municipal laws that are based on the concept of universal jurisdiction, indicate widespread international acceptance of the concept.
Universal jurisdiction differs from a state's prosecuting crimes under its own laws, whether on its own territory or abroad. As an example, the United States asserts jurisdiction over stateless vessels carrying illicit drugs on international waters—but here the US reaches across national borders to enforce its own law, rather than invoking universal jurisdiction and trans-national standards of right and wrong. States attempting to police acts committed by foreign nationals on foreign territory tends to be more controversial than a state prosecuting its own citizen
The Netherlands is a country located in Northwestern Europe. The European portion of the Netherlands consists of twelve separate provinces that border Germany to the east, Belgium to the south, the North Sea to the northwest, with maritime borders in the North Sea with Belgium and the United Kingdom. Together with three island territories in the Caribbean Sea—Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba— it forms a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands; the official language is Dutch, but a secondary official language in the province of Friesland is West Frisian. The six largest cities in the Netherlands are Amsterdam, The Hague, Utrecht and Tilburg. Amsterdam is the country's capital, while The Hague holds the seat of the States General and Supreme Court; the Port of Rotterdam is the largest port in Europe, the largest in any country outside Asia. The country is a founding member of the EU, Eurozone, G10, NATO, OECD and WTO, as well as a part of the Schengen Area and the trilateral Benelux Union.
It hosts several intergovernmental organisations and international courts, many of which are centered in The Hague, dubbed'the world's legal capital'. Netherlands means'lower countries' in reference to its low elevation and flat topography, with only about 50% of its land exceeding 1 metre above sea level, nearly 17% falling below sea level. Most of the areas below sea level, known as polders, are the result of land reclamation that began in the 16th century. With a population of 17.30 million people, all living within a total area of 41,500 square kilometres —of which the land area is 33,700 square kilometres —the Netherlands is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. It is the world's second-largest exporter of food and agricultural products, owing to its fertile soil, mild climate, intensive agriculture; the Netherlands was the third country in the world to have representative government, it has been a parliamentary constitutional monarchy with a unitary structure since 1848.
The country has a tradition of pillarisation and a long record of social tolerance, having legalised abortion and human euthanasia, along with maintaining a progressive drug policy. The Netherlands abolished the death penalty in 1870, allowed women's suffrage in 1917, became the world's first country to legalise same-sex marriage in 2001, its mixed-market advanced economy had the thirteenth-highest per capita income globally. The Netherlands ranks among the highest in international indexes of press freedom, economic freedom, human development, quality of life, as well as happiness; the Netherlands' turbulent history and shifts of power resulted in exceptionally many and varying names in different languages. There is diversity within languages; this holds for English, where Dutch is the adjective form and the misnomer Holland a synonym for the country "Netherlands". Dutch comes from Theodiscus and in the past centuries, the hub of Dutch culture is found in its most populous region, home to the capital city of Amsterdam.
Referring to the Netherlands as Holland in the English language is similar to calling the United Kingdom "Britain" by people outside the UK. The term is so pervasive among potential investors and tourists, that the Dutch government's international websites for tourism and trade are "holland.com" and "hollandtradeandinvest.com". The region of Holland consists of North and South Holland, two of the nation's twelve provinces a single province, earlier still, the County of Holland, a remnant of the dissolved Frisian Kingdom. Following the decline of the Duchy of Brabant and the County of Flanders, Holland became the most economically and politically important county in the Low Countries region; the emphasis on Holland during the formation of the Dutch Republic, the Eighty Years' War and the Anglo-Dutch Wars in the 16th, 17th and 18th century, made Holland serve as a pars pro toto for the entire country, now considered either incorrect, informal, or, depending on context, opprobrious. Nonetheless, Holland is used in reference to the Netherlands national football team.
The region called the Low Countries and the Country of the Netherlands. Place names with Neder, Nieder and Nedre and Bas or Inferior are in use in places all over Europe, they are sometimes used in a deictic relation to a higher ground that consecutively is indicated as Upper, Oben, Superior or Haut. In the case of the Low Countries / Netherlands the geographical location of the lower region has been more or less downstream and near the sea; the geographical location of the upper region, changed tremendously over time, depending on the location of the economic and military power governing the Low Countries area. The Romans made a distinction between the Roman provinces of downstream Germania Inferior and upstream Germania Superior; the designation'Low' to refer to the region returns again in the 10th century Duchy of Lower Lorraine, that covered much of the Low Countries. But this time the corresponding Upper region is Upper Lorraine, in nowadays Northern France; the Dukes of Burgundy, who ruled the Low Countries in the 15th century, used the term les pays de par deçà for the Low Countries as opposed to les pays de par delà for their original
Citizenship of the United States
Citizenship of the United States is a status that entails specific rights and benefits. Citizenship is understood as a "right to have rights" since it serves as a foundation of fundamental rights derived from and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, such as the right to freedom of expression, due process and work in the United States, to receive federal assistance; the implementation of citizenship requires attitudes including allegiance to the republic, an impulse to promote communities. Certain rights are so fundamental; these include those rights guaranteed by the first 8 Amendments. However, not all U. S. citizens, such as those living in Puerto Rico, have the right to vote in federal elections. There are two primary sources of citizenship: birthright citizenship, in which a person is presumed to be a citizen if he or she was born within the territorial limits of the United States, or—providing certain other requirements are met—born abroad to a U. S. citizen parent, naturalization, a process in which an eligible legal immigrant applies for citizenship and is accepted.
These two pathways to citizenship are specified in the Citizenship Clause of the Constitution's 1868 Fourteenth Amendment which reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. National citizenship signifies membership in the country as a whole. State citizenship may affect tax decisions and eligibility for some state-provided benefits such as higher education and eligibility for state political posts such as U. S. Senator. In Article One of the Constitution, the power to establish a "uniform rule of naturalization" is granted explicitly to Congress. U. S. law permits multiple citizenship. A citizen of another country naturalized as a U. S. citizen may retain their previous citizenship, though they must renounce allegiance to the other country. A U. S. citizen retains U. S. citizenship should that country's laws allow it. U. S. citizenship can be renounced by Americans who hold another citizenship via a formal procedure at a U.
S. Embassy, it can be restored. Freedom to work. United States citizens have the inalienable right to work in the United States. Certain non-citizens, such as permanent residents, have similar rights. For example, they may be deported. Freedom to leave the United States. United States citizens have the right to leave the United States freely. Certain non-citizens, such as permanent residents, have similar rights. Unlike permanent residents, U. S. citizens do not have an obligation to maintain residence in the U. S. – they can leave for any length of time and return at any time. Voting for federal office in all fifty states and the District of Columbia is restricted to citizens only. States are not required to extend the franchise to all citizens: for example, several states bar citizen felons from voting after they have completed any custodial sentence; the United States Constitution bars states from restricting citizens from voting on grounds of race, previous condition of servitude, failure to pay any tax, or age.
Many states and local jurisdictions have allowed non-citizens to vote. Citizens are not compelled to vote. Freedom to stand for public office; the United States Constitution requires that all members of the United States House of Representatives have been citizens for seven years, that all senators have been citizens for nine years, before taking office. Most states have similar requirements: for example California requires that legislators have been citizens for three years, the Governor have been a citizen for five years, upon taking office; the U. S. Constitution requires that one be "a natural born Citizen" and a U. S. resident for fourteen years in order to be President of the United States or Vice President of the United States. The Constitution stipulates that otherwise eligible citizens must meet certain age requirements for these offices. Right to apply for federal employment. Many federal government jobs require applicants to have U. S. citizenship. U. S. citizens can apply for federal employment within department.
Jury duty is only imposed upon citizens. Jury duty may be considered the "sole differential obligation" between citizens. Military participation is not required in the United States, but a policy of conscription of men has been in place at various times in American history, most during the Vietnam War; the United States Armed Forces are a professional all-volunteer force, although both male U. S. citizens and male non-citizen permanent residents are required to register with the Selective Service System and may be called up in the event of a future draft. Johns Hopkins University political scientist Benjamin Ginsberg writes, "The professional military has limited the need for citizen soldiers." Taxes. In the United States today, everyone except those whose income is derived from tax-exempt revenue (Sub
Defamation, vilification, or traducement is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of, depending on the law of the country, an individual, product, government, religion, or nation. Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must be false and must have been made to someone other than the person defamed; some common law jurisdictions distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel. False light laws protect against statements which are not technically false, but which are misleading. In some civil law jurisdictions, defamation is treated as a crime rather than a civil wrong; the United Nations Human Rights Committee ruled in 2012 that the libel law of one country, the Philippines, was inconsistent with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as urging that "State parties should consider the decriminalization of libel". In Saudi Arabia, defamation of the state, or a past or present ruler, is punishable under terrorism legislation.
A person who defames another may be called a "defamer", "libeler", "slanderer", or a "famacide". The term libel is derived from the Latin libellus; as of 2017, at least 130 UNESCO Member States retained criminal defamation laws. In 2017, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Office of the Representative on Freedom of the Media issued a report on criminal defamation and anti-blasphemy laws among its Member States, which found that defamation is criminalized in nearly three-quarters of the 57 OSCE participating States. Many of the laws pertaining to defamation include specific provisions for harsher punishment for speech or publications critical of heads of state, public officials, state bodies and the State itself; the OSCE report noted that blasphemy and religious insult laws exist in around one third of OSCE participating States. In Africa, at least four Member States decriminalized defamation between 2012 and 2017; the ruling by the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights in Lohé Issa Konaté v. the Republic of Burkina Faso set a precedent in the region against imprisonment as a legitimate penalty for defamation, characterizing it as a violation of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the treaty of the Economic Community of West African States.
Countries in every region have moved to advance the criminalization of defamation by extending legislation to online content. Cybercrime and anti-terrorism laws passed throughout the world have led to bloggers appearing before courts, with some serving time in prison; the United Nations, OSCE, Organisation of American States and African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Special Rapporteurs for Freedom of Expression stated in a joint declaration in March 2017 that ‘general prohibitions on the dissemination of information based on vague and ambiguous ideas, including "false news" or "non-objective information", are incompatible with international standards for restrictions on freedom of expression...and should be abolished.’ The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of "slander" and "libel", each of which gives a common law right of action. Defamation is the general term used internationally, is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel".
Libel and slander both require publication. The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures or the like it is slander. Libel is defined as defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures; the law of libel originated in the 17th century in England. With the growth of publication came the growth of libel and development of the tort of libel. An early example of libel is the case of John Peter Zenger in 1735. Zenger was hired to publish New York Weekly Journal; when he printed another man's article that criticized William Cosby, British Royal Governor of Colonial New York, Zenger was accused of seditious libel. The verdict was returned as Not Guilty on the charge of seditious libel, because it was proven that all the statements Zenger had published about Cosby had been true, so there was not an issue of defamation.
Another example of libel is the case of New York Times Sullivan. The U. S. Supreme Court overruled a State court in Alabama that had found The New York Times guilty of libel for printing an advertisement that criticized Alabama officials for mistreating student civil rights activists. Though some of what The Times printed was false, the Court ruled in its favor, saying that libel of a public official requires proof of actual malice, defined as a "knowing or reckless disregard for the truth". There are several things. In the United States, a person must prove that 1) the statement was false, 2) caused harm, 3) was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement; these steps are for an ordinary citizen. For a celebrity or public official, a person must prove the first three steps, that the statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth, specifically referred to as "actual malice". At one time, the honour of peers was protected
Black's Law Dictionary
Black's Law is the most used law dictionary in the United States. It was founded by Henry Campbell Black, it is the reference of choice for terms in legal briefs and court opinions and has been cited as a secondary legal authority in many U. S. Supreme Court cases; the latest editions, including abridged and pocket versions, are useful starting points for the layman or student when faced with an unfamiliar legal term. The first edition was published in 1891, the second edition in 1910; the sixth and earlier editions of the book provided case citations for the term cited, which some lawyers view as its most useful feature, providing a useful starting point with leading cases. The Internet made legal research easier than it had been, so many state- or circuit-specific case citations and outdated or overruled case citations were dropped from the seventh edition in 1999; the eighth edition introduced a unique system of perpetually updated case citations and cross-references to legal encyclopedias.
The current edition is the tenth, published in 2014. Because many legal terms are derived from a Latin root word, the Dictionary gives a pronunciation guide for such terms. In addition, the applicable entries provide pronunciation transcriptions pursuant to those found among North American practitioners of law or medicine. An online version of the tenth edition can be accessed through the paid Westlaw legal information service; the second edition of Black's Law Dictionary is now in the public domain and is available online for free. However, the general applicability of this online version is limited due to its age, it still applies for legal theory terms, many basic legal terms with respect to their general meaning. However, references to case law will be incomplete for modern purposes, the use of legal language in court filings and in the courtroom has changed with changes in law and legal culture over time; the Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. has reprinted the second editions. It is available as a Windows Phone application, the tenth edition is available as an application for iOS devices.
Black's Law Dictionary 10th ed. Bryan A. Garner, editor, ISBN 978-0-314-61300-4 Black's Law Dictionary 9th ed. Bryan A. Garner, editor, ISBN 0-314-19949-7 Black's Law Dictionary 8th ed. Bryan A. Garner, editor, ISBN 0-314-15199-0 Black's Law Dictionary 7th ed. Bryan A. Garner, editor, ISBN 0-314-22864-0 Black's Law Dictionary 6th ed. ISBN 90-6544-631-1 Black's Law Dictionary 5th ed. ISBN 0-8299-2041-2 Black's Law Dictionary Revised 4th ed. Black's Law Dictionary 4th ed. Black's Law Dictionary 3rd ed. Black's Law Dictionary 2nd ed. ISBN 1-886363-10-2. Public domain Black's Law Dictionary 1st ed. ISBN 0-9630106-0-3 Black's Law Dictionary 5th pocket ed. Bryan A. Garner, editor, ISBN 0-314-84489-9 Black's Law Dictionary 4th pocket ed. Bryan A. Garner, editor, ISBN 0-314-27544-4 Black's Law Dictionary 3rd pocket ed. Bryan A. Garner, editor, ISBN 0-314-15862-6 Black's Law Dictionary 2nd pocket ed. Bryan A. Garner, editor, ISBN 0-314-25791-8 Blackův právnický slovník. Complete translation of 6th edition into Czech.
Victoria Publishing, Prague, 1993. ISBN 80-85605-23-6. Āqāʼī, Bahman. Farhang-i ḥuqūqī-i Bahman: Ingilīsī-Fārsī: bar asās-i Black's law dictionary Muqtadirah-yi Qaumī Zabān. Qānūnī, Angrezī-Urdu lug̲h̲at: Blaiks lāʼ dikshanarī se māk̲h̲ūz / nigrān, Fatiḥ Muḥammad Malik ISBN 969-474-084-3. Bouvier's Law Dictionary Freemen on the land Law dictionary Legal terminology textbook List of legal abbreviations Sovereign Citizen Moorish Citizens, Sovereign Moorish Nation Wex WorldCat listing for all nine editions Libraries with the Urdu edition Libraries with the Persian edition Black's 2nd Edition Online Black's Law Dictionary 2nd ed.—freelawdictionary.org Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition at the Internet Archive
American Bar Association
The American Bar Association, founded August 21, 1878, is a voluntary bar association of lawyers and law students, not specific to any jurisdiction in the United States. The ABA's most important stated activities are the setting of academic standards for law schools, the formulation of model ethical codes related to the legal profession; the ABA has 410,000 members. Its national headquarters are in Illinois. C; the ABA was founded on August 21, 1878, in Saratoga Springs, New York, by 75 lawyers from 20 states and the District of Columbia. According to the ABA website, The legal profession as we know it today existed at that time. Lawyers were sole practitioners who trained under a system of apprenticeship. There was no national code of ethics; the purpose of the original organization, as set forth in its first constitution, was "the advancement of the science of jurisprudence, the promotion of the administration of justice and a uniformity of legislation throughout the country...."In 1918 the first women were admitted to the ABA – Judge Mary Belle Grossman of Cleveland and Mary Florence Lathrop of Denver.
The ABA did not allow African-Americans to join until 1943. This discrimination by the ABA led in 1937, of the National Lawyers Guild. Roberta Cooper Ramo was the first female President of the ABA from 1995–1996. In 2016 ABA introduced a new ethics rule prohibiting attorneys from using sexist and condescending terms; the ABA adopts "policy" on certain legislative and national issues, as voted on by its elected, 589-member House of Delegates. Its Board of Governors, with 44 members, has the authority to act for the ABA, consistent with previous action of the House of Delegates, when the House is not in session; the ABA president, elected to a one-year term, is chief executive officer of the association, while the appointed, longer-serving executive director works as chief operating officer. The conclusion of the ABA Annual Meeting, in August, is when a new president takes office, as well as when the main sessions of the House of Delegates take place; the Annual Meeting gives the general membership the opportunity to participate in educational programs and hear speakers address many issues.
In 2010, Jack L. Rives TJAG, was appointed Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer. One function of the ABA is its maintenance of a code of ethical standards for lawyers; the Model Code of Professional Responsibility and/or the newer Model Rules of Professional Conduct have been adopted in 49 states, the District of Columbia and the United States Virgin Islands. The exception is the State Bar of California. According to the ABA, it "provides law school accreditation, continuing legal education, information about the law, programs to assist lawyers and judges in their work, initiatives to improve the legal system for the public; the Mission of the American Bar Association is to be the national representative of the legal profession, serving the public and the profession by promoting justice, professional excellence and respect for the law." Since 1923, law schools which meet ABA standards are listed as "approved". ABA accreditation is important not only because it affects the recognition of the law schools involved, but it affects a graduate's ability to practice law in a particular state.
In most U. S. jurisdictions, graduation from an ABA-accredited law school is prerequisite towards being allowed to sit for that state's bar exam, for existing lawyers to be admitted to the bar of another state upon motion. States which recognize unaccredited schools within their borders will not recognize such schools from other jurisdictions for purposes of bar admission. For law students attending ABA-accredited schools, memberships are available for free. Students attending non-ABA accredited law schools are permitted to join the ABA as associate members. In June 2009, the ABA Journal reported that the ABA had been working "for months" to change its accreditation standard, where accreditation will be the result of what kind of lawyer an ABA law school produces as opposed to "input" measures such as faculty size and physical plant. In 2012 a non-profit organization called Law School Transparency called upon the ABA to provide meaningful statistics regarding the employment prospects and salary information of graduates of ABA accredited institutions.
On October 17, 2011, the ABA announced it was considering penalties, including loss of accreditation for schools that misreported their graduates employment data. Starting with the Class of 2011, ABA-accredited law schools were required to file Standard 509 Information Reports that included a host of data, ranging from LSAT scores of law students to bar passage rates of graduates. Employment information was filed separately to the Section. On December 12, 2011, despite the ongoing controversy surrounding law school accreditation standards and inability of law school graduates to service their educational debt, the ABA approved another law school. In 1995 the United States Department of Justice accused the ABA of violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act in its law school accreditation proceedings; the case was resolved with a consent decree. In 2006, the ABA acknowledged that it paid DOJ a $185,000 fine; the American Bar Association Center for Continuing Legal Education serves as the ce