As a note, in the opinion the SCOTUS remanded part of the case in order for a lower court (9th Circuit) to determine if the school district is liable. P. 13 of the opinion; 17 of the pdf. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-479.pdf
So there is a very distinct possibility there will be at least faceless accountability, if that provides any comfort.
Of course you can. Rule #1: Follow the intent, not the letter, And then make the intent as clear as humanly possible.
To use an old example of the difficulty in determining the "intent" of a law. Imagine you have 101 law makers. 50 are in favor of the proposed law and 50 are opposed. 1 legislature doesn't care but really wants new roads built for his home town. The 50 in favor cut a deal whereby he supports the law and they help him get his roads. Which "intent" is used to determine the intent of the law when a marginal case arises?
Selection was involved, but not natural selection.
Why is it constantly claimed that because humans play a part an event is no longer "natural?"
If a dog breed arose because of predators were not eating ones of a certain color no one would doubt it was "natural selection." But since humans were involved and selected based liking one color over another. Thereby only allowing dogs with the favorable trait to breed the selection is suddenly not natural.
A federal court of appeal recently ruled that this law violated the first amendment.
I am actually following the Golan v Holder case. The 10th circuit only remanded the case to be examined on 1st amendment grounds.
It was a federal district court that held it violated the first amendment.
If the 10th circuit upholds the decision there is a decent chance the supreme court will decide to hear it. The 10th circuit has not reviewed the case again, yet.
why, however, the ACLU generally pretends the second amendment doesn't exist perplexes me
This is the main reason I'm not a card carrying member of the ACLU. Bunch of fucking hypocrites.... American Civil Liberties Union, eh?
I posed the question to an ACLU member. His response was:
"There is an entire well funded organization which specifically focuses on second amendment issues. If it were the case that citizens could not get free quality representation on such issues, we would likely cover more second amendment cases. Additionally, since the NRA is more focused they typically have more expertise."
His response makes sense to me. Basically, there are many civil liberties which need to be protected. If one is protected exceedingly well by another well funded group, the ACLU should focus on others.
IANAL, For public locations, the Police need to abide by their own ROE and typically only probable cause or some other suspicion or wrongdoing is needed for the Police to search your person or vehicle (as you would NOT be located on/in YOUR 4th Amendment Protected private property but in a public location.)
There was a time when the 4th amendment protected people not places or things from unreasonable searches (Katz v United States, 1967). The court expressly held that the defendant's conversation was protected while using a public phone booth. Sadly, that view of the 4th amendment is gone by the wayside.
Now, unless a "police officer" or employee acts deliberately, knowingly or recklessly with regard to your 4th amendment rights then the evidence may be excluded. If the officer is "merely negligent" or relies on a record system which does not have "widespread" errors, when he violates your 4th amendment rights you have no recourse or remedy. (Herring)
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-513.pdf
Slashdot Mirror
As a note, in the opinion the SCOTUS remanded part of the case in order for a lower court (9th Circuit) to determine if the school district is liable. P. 13 of the opinion; 17 of the pdf. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-479.pdf So there is a very distinct possibility there will be at least faceless accountability, if that provides any comfort.
Of course you can. Rule #1: Follow the intent, not the letter, And then make the intent as clear as humanly possible.
To use an old example of the difficulty in determining the "intent" of a law. Imagine you have 101 law makers. 50 are in favor of the proposed law and 50 are opposed. 1 legislature doesn't care but really wants new roads built for his home town. The 50 in favor cut a deal whereby he supports the law and they help him get his roads. Which "intent" is used to determine the intent of the law when a marginal case arises?
Selection was involved, but not natural selection.
Why is it constantly claimed that because humans play a part an event is no longer "natural?" If a dog breed arose because of predators were not eating ones of a certain color no one would doubt it was "natural selection." But since humans were involved and selected based liking one color over another. Thereby only allowing dogs with the favorable trait to breed the selection is suddenly not natural.
A federal court of appeal recently ruled that this law violated the first amendment.
I am actually following the Golan v Holder case. The 10th circuit only remanded the case to be examined on 1st amendment grounds. It was a federal district court that held it violated the first amendment. If the 10th circuit upholds the decision there is a decent chance the supreme court will decide to hear it. The 10th circuit has not reviewed the case again, yet.
why, however, the ACLU generally pretends the second amendment doesn't exist perplexes me
This is the main reason I'm not a card carrying member of the ACLU. Bunch of fucking hypocrites.... American Civil Liberties Union, eh?
I posed the question to an ACLU member. His response was: "There is an entire well funded organization which specifically focuses on second amendment issues. If it were the case that citizens could not get free quality representation on such issues, we would likely cover more second amendment cases. Additionally, since the NRA is more focused they typically have more expertise." His response makes sense to me. Basically, there are many civil liberties which need to be protected. If one is protected exceedingly well by another well funded group, the ACLU should focus on others.
IANAL, For public locations, the Police need to abide by their own ROE and typically only probable cause or some other suspicion or wrongdoing is needed for the Police to search your person or vehicle (as you would NOT be located on/in YOUR 4th Amendment Protected private property but in a public location.)
There was a time when the 4th amendment protected people not places or things from unreasonable searches (Katz v United States, 1967). The court expressly held that the defendant's conversation was protected while using a public phone booth. Sadly, that view of the 4th amendment is gone by the wayside. Now, unless a "police officer" or employee acts deliberately, knowingly or recklessly with regard to your 4th amendment rights then the evidence may be excluded. If the officer is "merely negligent" or relies on a record system which does not have "widespread" errors, when he violates your 4th amendment rights you have no recourse or remedy. (Herring) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-513.pdf