Actually "why" can mean "how" in some instances. You simply have assumed that the OP meant "for what purpose" when he said "why." For example, "Why did you hit me?"
He could have just as easily meant "what is the cause?" For example, "Why is the sky blue?"
I know this is Slashdot and all, so we shouldn't assume you are familiar with the process, but maybe it's time you sat down and had a talk with mom and dad about where babies come from.
Typically, in the U.S at least, discovery requests must be reasonably calculated so as to result in the discovery of evidence relevant to the issues in the case. So, if you have good reason to believe that the person's e-mail, voice mail, etc. might contain something relevant to the lawsuit, you are entitled to it.
"The public has the right to every man's evidence." - Many sources, no idea which is the original.
Making copyright/IP protection last for a very long time defeats the purpose of it entirely.
If you want indefinite protection, you don't share your idea. You get to realize all the benefit, but you run the risk of your idea being independently discovered or stolen.
In exchange for offering you a monopoly for a limited period of time, which guarantees that no one will steal your idea or benefit from independent discovery, then we require that you give your idea to the public after a set time. Thus encouraging progress, from which the public benefits, and at the same time, ensuring that that progress does actually benefit the public at some point in time, rather than one person.
The good thing about the criminal code in the U.S. as it relates to taxes is that most of the crimes require you to act "willfully," which is one step above knowingly, and requires that you voluntarily and intentionally act in violation of a known legal duty.
In other words, you have to know that what you're doing is a tax crime before you can be guilty of it, under U.S. law, a rare exception to the usual "ignorance is no excuse" rule.
My point was that people treat income lost to taxes as money lost forever. It's still being used for something, it's just that you have a lot less of a say in how it is used. It's not wasted, just used in a different manner.
Taxation has always curbed a certain amount of trade. I don't have to cite a source, as I would consider it common sense.
Does it though? Instead of you spending your money on X, the government takes your money and spends it on Y. It still gets spent. In fact, when the government takes your money, it's almost guaranteed to be spent on some good or service, because the government doesn't typically horde cash. Whereas, if you held onto that money instead of giving it to the government, you are probably not going to spend as much of that money as the government did, and instead might horde it and not spend it at all.
For example, a federal law trumps a state law, unless it happens to be in the state constitution, in which case only the federal constition can override or restrict it.
Go back and read the Supremacy Clause again. It clearly says that federal law trumps state constitutions and state law.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
NH has had a property tax for a long time. In fact, the property tax in NH pretty much accounts for almost the entire state budget. The problem is that owning valuable property does not necessary equate to ability to pay taxes. Thus, you're anecdote bears some relevance to NH's tax system, but not because the tax is new, rather, because your friend inherited valuable land, but has a limited income and therefore cannot pay the tax.
If you exchanged something for those services, you technically did enter into a contract. It only lasted for a fraction of a second, but there was an oral contract. The contract being, I pay you X, you do Y.
If you read the court's opinion, you'll see why this case is different from the typical "You have the right to remain silent" case.
During an interrogation, you can always reinvoke your Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination, even if you've already started answering questions. However, the statements you've already made can be used against you.
Conversely, if you're the defendant and take the stand at trial, you have just waived your Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination for the rest of the trial. You don't get to pick which questions you want to answer. If you refuse to answer a question, you can be held in contempt of court until you answer it.
Like most legal questions, it depends on the circumstances.
Seriously people, read the court's opinion. Nowhere does the court say it finds he has waived his Fifth Amendment rights because of his initial cooperation. Instead, the rationale is that because the government is already aware of what is on the hard drive (the border agent saw suspicious file names and then apparently saw actual images of child pornography while reviewing the computer when it was turned on), forcing him to hand over the documents is not a self-incriminating act.
Further, because they are documents already existed, they are not "testimonial" in themselves. The Fifth Amendment concern is with forcing the person to hand over the documents, because doing so may in effect be self-incrimination because the person is being forced to admit either that they have the documents or that the documents are real and exist. Neither of these is an issue, because the government already knows the documents exist and are real, and the defendant admitted to having them on his computer.
So, to sum it all up, the conclusion is not that the defendant has waived his Fifth Amendment rights, but rather, that forcing him to produce what is on the laptop does not constitute compelling him to testify against himself.
The term "protected class" is typically used in the U.S. anti-discrimination sense. Sexual orientation is not a protected class under U.S. law. Some states have added provisions to their anti-discrimination laws, but as far as the feds are concerned, it's okay to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
That wouldn't really be ex post facto. You're making a factual argument that there was consent. Consent is an affirmative defense, which means the burden is on him to prove it. Ex post facto would be the situation where the law did not prohibit his actions, but then was later changed to prohibit his actions, and he is prosecuted for actions that took place prior to the change in law.
Nor is your other example a bill of attainder. The defendant was charged by the state with a crime, and brought before a (hopefully independent) judge. That judge decided that the amount of bond necessary to guarantee the defendant's attendance at trial was $5,000,000. It is not punishment, it is just the only reliable mechanism available to us to make sure people show up to court when they're supposed to.
They're trying to find something to pin on him so they don't get seriously censured by the court for keeping this guy in jail 7 months.
Judges set bonds, not prosecutors. Bond really only serves 2 main purposes. The primary one is to make sure you show up for trial. The secondary one is to protect the public from you, if there is a showing that are a serious potential danger to the public if you are allowed free pending trial. Given the nature of these charges, I'm guessing the judge decided the defendant was not likely to show up for trial on his own, or even with a significant amount of cash or surety at risk, so he set a high bond to guarantee his attendance at trial.
I want you on my juries. It's good to know some people actually take their oaths and admonitions as jurors seriously.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I would like a very technical oriented individual as a juror, since they're more likely to follow the rules given to them for a specific situation, and logically apply the facts they see to those rules.
Now if only jury venires tended to have people in them other than those without jobs.
Some janitors make $60,000/year, some make $20,000/year. As with many jobs, their pay has less to do with their skill and more to do with their luck in finding the right job.
This will simply bring California closer to being in line with the FLSA like most of the rest of the country.
An interesting related topic has been brewing in Ohio lately, where certain governmental entities decided to pay overtime to exempt employees. (ODOT and Columbus City Government are two examples).
It all depends on what type of employee you want to attract, and whether you have enough other reasons for them to stick around. Some businesses may determine that they don't need to pay exempt employees overtime because it has no impact on their bottom line. (Maybe they offer a great health insurance package, and so people are willing to work without overtime pay and still be happy). Other businesses may decide it is better to offer exempt employees paid overtime.
The federal government has set the floor requirements. The problem with individual states going above those minimum requirements is that they run the risk that company XYZ may decide to locate where they can decide for themselves whether or not to pay overtime to exempt employees.
I work 9 to 5. I work HARD 9 to 5, but at 5 I log out and go home. If you want me to spend extra time at work then we need to do some negotiation for a new contract and you're going to be giving me more money.
That's your decision. If someone else out there is willing to get the same paycheck regardless of how many hours they work, then I should be able to hire that person if I so choose. Depending on the particular type of business and work being done, one option may be more beneficial to both parties than the other.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually "why" can mean "how" in some instances. You simply have assumed that the OP meant "for what purpose" when he said "why." For example, "Why did you hit me?"
He could have just as easily meant "what is the cause?" For example, "Why is the sky blue?"
Each is a valid use of the word "why."
Why do women have babies?
I know this is Slashdot and all, so we shouldn't assume you are familiar with the process, but maybe it's time you sat down and had a talk with mom and dad about where babies come from.
Typically, in the U.S at least, discovery requests must be reasonably calculated so as to result in the discovery of evidence relevant to the issues in the case. So, if you have good reason to believe that the person's e-mail, voice mail, etc. might contain something relevant to the lawsuit, you are entitled to it.
"The public has the right to every man's evidence." - Many sources, no idea which is the original.
Eh, I still call it tape-recording shows instead of "DVR"ing or whatever would be more appropriate.
Making copyright/IP protection last for a very long time defeats the purpose of it entirely.
If you want indefinite protection, you don't share your idea. You get to realize all the benefit, but you run the risk of your idea being independently discovered or stolen.
In exchange for offering you a monopoly for a limited period of time, which guarantees that no one will steal your idea or benefit from independent discovery, then we require that you give your idea to the public after a set time. Thus encouraging progress, from which the public benefits, and at the same time, ensuring that that progress does actually benefit the public at some point in time, rather than one person.
The good thing about the criminal code in the U.S. as it relates to taxes is that most of the crimes require you to act "willfully," which is one step above knowingly, and requires that you voluntarily and intentionally act in violation of a known legal duty.
In other words, you have to know that what you're doing is a tax crime before you can be guilty of it, under U.S. law, a rare exception to the usual "ignorance is no excuse" rule.
My point was that people treat income lost to taxes as money lost forever. It's still being used for something, it's just that you have a lot less of a say in how it is used. It's not wasted, just used in a different manner.
Taxation has always curbed a certain amount of trade. I don't have to cite a source, as I would consider it common sense.
Does it though? Instead of you spending your money on X, the government takes your money and spends it on Y. It still gets spent. In fact, when the government takes your money, it's almost guaranteed to be spent on some good or service, because the government doesn't typically horde cash. Whereas, if you held onto that money instead of giving it to the government, you are probably not going to spend as much of that money as the government did, and instead might horde it and not spend it at all.
For example, a federal law trumps a state law, unless it happens to be in the state constitution, in which case only the federal constition can override or restrict it.
Go back and read the Supremacy Clause again. It clearly says that federal law trumps state constitutions and state law.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
NH has had a property tax for a long time. In fact, the property tax in NH pretty much accounts for almost the entire state budget. The problem is that owning valuable property does not necessary equate to ability to pay taxes. Thus, you're anecdote bears some relevance to NH's tax system, but not because the tax is new, rather, because your friend inherited valuable land, but has a limited income and therefore cannot pay the tax.
If you exchanged something for those services, you technically did enter into a contract. It only lasted for a fraction of a second, but there was an oral contract. The contract being, I pay you X, you do Y.
If you read the court's opinion, you'll see why this case is different from the typical "You have the right to remain silent" case.
During an interrogation, you can always reinvoke your Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination, even if you've already started answering questions. However, the statements you've already made can be used against you.
Conversely, if you're the defendant and take the stand at trial, you have just waived your Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination for the rest of the trial. You don't get to pick which questions you want to answer. If you refuse to answer a question, you can be held in contempt of court until you answer it.
Like most legal questions, it depends on the circumstances.
Seriously people, read the court's opinion. Nowhere does the court say it finds he has waived his Fifth Amendment rights because of his initial cooperation. Instead, the rationale is that because the government is already aware of what is on the hard drive (the border agent saw suspicious file names and then apparently saw actual images of child pornography while reviewing the computer when it was turned on), forcing him to hand over the documents is not a self-incriminating act.
Further, because they are documents already existed, they are not "testimonial" in themselves. The Fifth Amendment concern is with forcing the person to hand over the documents, because doing so may in effect be self-incrimination because the person is being forced to admit either that they have the documents or that the documents are real and exist. Neither of these is an issue, because the government already knows the documents exist and are real, and the defendant admitted to having them on his computer.
So, to sum it all up, the conclusion is not that the defendant has waived his Fifth Amendment rights, but rather, that forcing him to produce what is on the laptop does not constitute compelling him to testify against himself.
Sue is not a very "lesbian" name.
The term "protected class" is typically used in the U.S. anti-discrimination sense. Sexual orientation is not a protected class under U.S. law. Some states have added provisions to their anti-discrimination laws, but as far as the feds are concerned, it's okay to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Thankfully, trial courts don't make any precedent at all.
That wouldn't really be ex post facto. You're making a factual argument that there was consent. Consent is an affirmative defense, which means the burden is on him to prove it. Ex post facto would be the situation where the law did not prohibit his actions, but then was later changed to prohibit his actions, and he is prosecuted for actions that took place prior to the change in law.
Nor is your other example a bill of attainder. The defendant was charged by the state with a crime, and brought before a (hopefully independent) judge. That judge decided that the amount of bond necessary to guarantee the defendant's attendance at trial was $5,000,000. It is not punishment, it is just the only reliable mechanism available to us to make sure people show up to court when they're supposed to.
They're trying to find something to pin on him so they don't get seriously censured by the court for keeping this guy in jail 7 months.
Judges set bonds, not prosecutors. Bond really only serves 2 main purposes. The primary one is to make sure you show up for trial. The secondary one is to protect the public from you, if there is a showing that are a serious potential danger to the public if you are allowed free pending trial. Given the nature of these charges, I'm guessing the judge decided the defendant was not likely to show up for trial on his own, or even with a significant amount of cash or surety at risk, so he set a high bond to guarantee his attendance at trial.
Our local inmates wear Hamburglar outfits. The only thing missing is the hat.
I want you on my juries. It's good to know some people actually take their oaths and admonitions as jurors seriously.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I would like a very technical oriented individual as a juror, since they're more likely to follow the rules given to them for a specific situation, and logically apply the facts they see to those rules.
Now if only jury venires tended to have people in them other than those without jobs.
The right to bear arms has been supplanted by the right to bare arms. Enjoy.
It's a lot more disgusting if you live on a very small lot with a leech field and well less than 50 feet from each other.
Some janitors make $60,000/year, some make $20,000/year. As with many jobs, their pay has less to do with their skill and more to do with their luck in finding the right job.
This will simply bring California closer to being in line with the FLSA like most of the rest of the country.
An interesting related topic has been brewing in Ohio lately, where certain governmental entities decided to pay overtime to exempt employees. (ODOT and Columbus City Government are two examples).
It all depends on what type of employee you want to attract, and whether you have enough other reasons for them to stick around. Some businesses may determine that they don't need to pay exempt employees overtime because it has no impact on their bottom line. (Maybe they offer a great health insurance package, and so people are willing to work without overtime pay and still be happy). Other businesses may decide it is better to offer exempt employees paid overtime.
The federal government has set the floor requirements. The problem with individual states going above those minimum requirements is that they run the risk that company XYZ may decide to locate where they can decide for themselves whether or not to pay overtime to exempt employees.
I work 9 to 5. I work HARD 9 to 5, but at 5 I log out and go home. If you want me to spend extra time at work then we need to do some negotiation for a new contract and you're going to be giving me more money.
That's your decision. If someone else out there is willing to get the same paycheck regardless of how many hours they work, then I should be able to hire that person if I so choose. Depending on the particular type of business and work being done, one option may be more beneficial to both parties than the other.