If people were to consistently vote incumbents out of office, the incentive for trampling on civil liberties would be reduced. As a matter of fact it would offer significant incentive for elected officials to oppose trampling on civil liberties since they would know that they would likely be private citizens again shortly, subject to the same abuses that other private citizens were subject to.
This is correct. It is a law which I do not see any way for them to constitutionally enforce on developers who operate out of another state (let alone another country). Although I suspect that the state legislature could have written something into the law forcing the App Store to remove any app which is in violation of the law (assuming the company that runs the App Store is based in CA).
They have also been shown to react to their handler's belief about whether there is contraband present. That is, if there is contraband present, the dog will probably detect it if the dog is within range. However, there is a significant possibility that if the handler believes that there is contraband present the dog will "detect" it as well.
Profit and revenues are NOT the same thing. The article you linked to seemed to indicate that all of the tax avoidance (even thought they called it tax dodging) was perfectly legal. If that is the case, then your problem is not with NewsCorp, but with the politicians who wrote the tax loopholes that they take advantage of.
Well, that is all well and good, but in the majority of states, the starting teacher's salary is greater than $40,000 and in every state the starting teacher's salary is greater than $30,000. Which means that there is no state where "most" teachers are making south of $40,000 a year.
Yes, that is true. For example, I have heard of my local papers. I never go to their websites unless one of their articles goes up on one of the news aggregators I regularly visit because they so rarely publish anything I am interested in reading.
There is not a single state in the U.S. where average teacher's salary is below $40,000 a year. Not only that but the starting salary for teacher's in every state is in excess of $30,000.
This is not true. There are ten states that are all party notification states (that is they require that all parties agree to be recorded):
California Connecticut Florida Maryland Massachusetts Montana (requires notification only) Nevada New Hampshire Pennsylvania Washington
In addition, if the conversation takes place between one of these states and a state that allows one-party notification, the stricter laws apply. There is however another problem with the story the OP posted. Most of those states have an exception for if the person threatens the life of the person they are talking to or if they commit a felony in the phone conversation (e.g. offer to sell illegal drugs).
You mean that this story did not happen? http://www2.tbo.com/news/opinion/2012/oct/26/naopino1-a-disturbing-effort-to-influence-the-elec-ar-544704/
Nor the story about the Dem who slashed the tires on the vans that Republicans were going to use to take voters to the polls in 2008 (sorry, I don't have the link to that one anymore). There are many more like those two. It's just that they are very hard to find, since Democrats rarely report on systematic misdeeds by Democrats.
Or put it more clearly: If you put up those billboards only in specific parts of the country, it's clear that you want to warn a certain part of the population, because you don't like their voting habits.
Except the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority to regulate federal elections in Article I.
That is true, but no one is referencing any place where Congress did so. The agreement was entered into by the Executive Branch and I have found no references where it was ratified by the Senate, nor where Congress passed any laws superseding state laws in support of the OSCE agreements.
Except for the minor fact that the rulings involved treaties. There is no treaty involved with the OSCE, so there is no invocation of the Supremacy Clause.
Except that the "permitted by law" part isn't referring to what you think it is. It is in reference to the laws of the national government.
Except that the "laws of the national government" in this case state that "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof". So in this case the "national government" has delegated the framing of the laws to the individual states.
And before you try to make some comment about the next line, "but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators." keep in mind that there is no treaty creating the OSCE, merely an agreement. That means that Congress has not passed any law (at least not one that has been mentioned so far in this discussion) which supersedes the law passed by the Texas legislature as pursuant to the U.S. Constitution.
recognising that it conflicts with higher level federal, or international law
Except that under the U.S. Constitution the only "international law" that trumps state law is that established by treaties which have been signed by the President and ratified by the Senate. There is no such treaty as regards the establishment of the OSCE. As a matter of fact, if you look into the OSCE you discover this: "A unique aspect of the OSCE is the non-binding status of its provisions." So, you are recommending that Texas ignore its own laws in favor of a nonbinding agreement that has no legal standing.
The laws of the U.S. (the U.S. Constitution) say that elections shall be carried out according to the laws instituted by the legislatures of the individual states. So, the laws that apply in Texas to the parts of the election carried out in Texas for the purposes of this agreement are the laws enacted by the state legislature of Texas. That is the law of the national "State" in this case.
Considering that the U.S. Constitution explicitly gives authority to deciding how the states' electors will be chosen to the legislatures of the individual states, the federal government has no authority to enter into an agreement that overrides the state legislature's laws on how those electors are chosen. Supremacy Clause or no Supremacy Clause.
Well, projection is an amazing thing. Of course, the people that Michael Mann is suing never even implied that he was a pedophile. What they said was, if the then President of Penn State was willing to cover up for a pedophile, would it be a surprise to anybody to discover that he was willing to cover up scientific misconduct?
The defendants are much more creative than that. They are going to use discovery in this case to gain access to documents that Michael Mann has very strenuously fought to keep out of the public eye. There may be nothing in those documents relevant to either this case or to the AGW debate, but the fact that Michael Mann has fought so hard to keep them private suggests that there is something in them he would rather the public not know (it may be on a completely unrelated topic).
Slashdot Mirror
...waterboarding of prisoners, which the US declared to be a crime against humanity in 1945.
citation needed
If people were to consistently vote incumbents out of office, the incentive for trampling on civil liberties would be reduced. As a matter of fact it would offer significant incentive for elected officials to oppose trampling on civil liberties since they would know that they would likely be private citizens again shortly, subject to the same abuses that other private citizens were subject to.
This is correct. It is a law which I do not see any way for them to constitutionally enforce on developers who operate out of another state (let alone another country). Although I suspect that the state legislature could have written something into the law forcing the App Store to remove any app which is in violation of the law (assuming the company that runs the App Store is based in CA).
They have also been shown to react to their handler's belief about whether there is contraband present. That is, if there is contraband present, the dog will probably detect it if the dog is within range. However, there is a significant possibility that if the handler believes that there is contraband present the dog will "detect" it as well.
It is a pretty good starting salary in the states where teachers start at less than $40,000 (but more than $30,000).
Profit and revenues are NOT the same thing. The article you linked to seemed to indicate that all of the tax avoidance (even thought they called it tax dodging) was perfectly legal. If that is the case, then your problem is not with NewsCorp, but with the politicians who wrote the tax loopholes that they take advantage of.
Well, that is all well and good, but in the majority of states, the starting teacher's salary is greater than $40,000 and in every state the starting teacher's salary is greater than $30,000. Which means that there is no state where "most" teachers are making south of $40,000 a year.
Yes, that is true. For example, I have heard of my local papers. I never go to their websites unless one of their articles goes up on one of the news aggregators I regularly visit because they so rarely publish anything I am interested in reading.
Except of course that most people who read the article have never even heard of the paper before seeing it listed on Google.
There is not a single state in the U.S. where average teacher's salary is below $40,000 a year. Not only that but the starting salary for teacher's in every state is in excess of $30,000.
This is not true. There are ten states that are all party notification states (that is they require that all parties agree to be recorded): California Connecticut Florida Maryland Massachusetts Montana (requires notification only) Nevada New Hampshire Pennsylvania Washington
In addition, if the conversation takes place between one of these states and a state that allows one-party notification, the stricter laws apply. There is however another problem with the story the OP posted. Most of those states have an exception for if the person threatens the life of the person they are talking to or if they commit a felony in the phone conversation (e.g. offer to sell illegal drugs).
You mean that this story did not happen? http://www2.tbo.com/news/opinion/2012/oct/26/naopino1-a-disturbing-effort-to-influence-the-elec-ar-544704/
Nor the story about the Dem who slashed the tires on the vans that Republicans were going to use to take voters to the polls in 2008 (sorry, I don't have the link to that one anymore). There are many more like those two. It's just that they are very hard to find, since Democrats rarely report on systematic misdeeds by Democrats.
Or put it more clearly: If you put up those billboards only in specific parts of the country, it's clear that you want to warn a certain part of the population, because you don't like their voting habits.
Such as voting illegally.
Or maybe they only put them up in areas where there has been evidence of voter fraud in the past?
The question is this, is it voter intimidation to put up a billboard reminding people that voter fraud is illegal?
Except the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority to regulate federal elections in Article I.
That is true, but no one is referencing any place where Congress did so. The agreement was entered into by the Executive Branch and I have found no references where it was ratified by the Senate, nor where Congress passed any laws superseding state laws in support of the OSCE agreements.
Except for the minor fact that the rulings involved treaties. There is no treaty involved with the OSCE, so there is no invocation of the Supremacy Clause.
Except that there is no treaty.
Voter Fraud is not legal under any circumstances either.
Except that the "permitted by law" part isn't referring to what you think it is. It is in reference to the laws of the national government.
Except that the "laws of the national government" in this case state that "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof". So in this case the "national government" has delegated the framing of the laws to the individual states.
And before you try to make some comment about the next line, "but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators." keep in mind that there is no treaty creating the OSCE, merely an agreement. That means that Congress has not passed any law (at least not one that has been mentioned so far in this discussion) which supersedes the law passed by the Texas legislature as pursuant to the U.S. Constitution.
recognising that it conflicts with higher level federal, or international law
Except that under the U.S. Constitution the only "international law" that trumps state law is that established by treaties which have been signed by the President and ratified by the Senate. There is no such treaty as regards the establishment of the OSCE. As a matter of fact, if you look into the OSCE you discover this: "A unique aspect of the OSCE is the non-binding status of its provisions." So, you are recommending that Texas ignore its own laws in favor of a nonbinding agreement that has no legal standing.
The laws of the U.S. (the U.S. Constitution) say that elections shall be carried out according to the laws instituted by the legislatures of the individual states. So, the laws that apply in Texas to the parts of the election carried out in Texas for the purposes of this agreement are the laws enacted by the state legislature of Texas. That is the law of the national "State" in this case.
Considering that the U.S. Constitution explicitly gives authority to deciding how the states' electors will be chosen to the legislatures of the individual states, the federal government has no authority to enter into an agreement that overrides the state legislature's laws on how those electors are chosen. Supremacy Clause or no Supremacy Clause.
Well, projection is an amazing thing. Of course, the people that Michael Mann is suing never even implied that he was a pedophile. What they said was, if the then President of Penn State was willing to cover up for a pedophile, would it be a surprise to anybody to discover that he was willing to cover up scientific misconduct?
The defendants are much more creative than that. They are going to use discovery in this case to gain access to documents that Michael Mann has very strenuously fought to keep out of the public eye. There may be nothing in those documents relevant to either this case or to the AGW debate, but the fact that Michael Mann has fought so hard to keep them private suggests that there is something in them he would rather the public not know (it may be on a completely unrelated topic).