Researching My State’s Counseling Credentials

Posted on April 12, 2022 | by Dan

Locate your state laws and regulations relating to the five areas of practice listed below. Use Capella’s Licensure Resources for this assignment. The laws regulating the practice of counseling in your state can be found on your state counseling board website or through your state counseling association. School counselors should check with the state board of education. Use the Researching My State’s Counseling Credentials Form document listed below as a guide for completing this assignment.

Review the state laws and regulations relating to the practice of counseling for your specialization. Within these regulations, locate the specific areas relating to:
Master’s Program site-based learning (such as practicum or internship) requirements.
Post-master’s degree hour requirements under supervision.
If none, indicate “not applicable.” This is common for school counselors.
Supervision.
Who can function as a supervisor in your state?
What are the requirements for being a supervisor?
Licensing certification requirements and application process.
Education requirements, for example.
Continuing education requirements for licensed/credentialed counselors.
How many hours will you need? And how often?
Information about grounds for suspension or revocation of a license.
List three specific things that can get you into trouble in your state.
Address how these laws impact counseling professionals in general.
This section should be one paragraph.
Remember to cite your sources.
Address how credentialing requirements are intended to protect the clients, the consumers, and the public.
This section should be one paragraph.
Remember to cite your sources.
Please be sure to cite the specific legal codes. For example, the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) #4757-13 discusses the licensing of counselors

Sample Solution

ver, we can also argue that the war can never be the last resort, given there is always a way to try to avoid it, like sanctions or appeasement, showing Vittola’s theory is flawed. Fourthly, Vittola questions upon whose authority can demand a declaration of war, where he implies any commonwealth can go to war, but more importantly, “the prince” where he has “the natural order” according to Augustine, and all authority is given to him. This is further supported by Aristotle’s Politics ((1996), Page 28): ‘a king is the natural superior of his subjects.’ However, he does later emphasise to put all faith in the prince is wrong and has consequences; a thorough examination of the cause of war is required along with the willingness to negotiate rival party (Begby et al (2006b), Page 312& 318). This is supported by the actions of Hitler are deemed unjustly. Also, in today’s world, wars are no longer fought only by states but also non-state actors like Al-Queda and ISIS, showing Vittola’s normative claim on authority is outdated. This is further supported by Frowe’s claim that the leader needs to represent the people’s interests, under legitimate authority, which links on to the fourth condition: Public declaration of war. Agreed with many, there must be an official announcement on a declaration of war (Frowe (2011), Page 59-60&63). Finally, the most controversial condition is that wars should have a reasonable chance of success. As Vittola reiterated, the aim of war is to establish peace and security; securing the public good. If this can’t be achieved, Frowe argues it would be better to surrender to the enemy. This can be justified because the costs of war would have been bigger (Frowe (2011), Page 56-7). Consequently, jus ad bellum comprises several conditions but most importantly: just cause and proportionality. This gives people a guide whether it’s lawful to enter a war or not. However, this is only one part of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, it can be seen above that jus ad bellum can be debated throughout, showing that there is no definitive theory of a just war, as it is normatively theorised. Jus in bello The second section begins deciphering jus in bello or what actions can we classify as permissible in just wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 323). First, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by “non-combatant immunity” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are acci

PLACE AN ORDER NOW

Subject:
Type:
Pages/Words:
	Single spaced
	approx 275 words per page
Urgency:
Level:
Currency:
Total Cost: