Yes, if you're an authoritarian gun nut (so long as authorities are the only ones with guns) who enjoys shooting peoples dogs as a means of intimidation or you're part of the increasingly lucrative imprisonment industry, it's great news. If you're one of the 500 people per 100000 population being incarcerated, not so much. Note that for the first 70 years of the 20th century, incarceration rates were stable at around 100 people per 100000 population.
Prohibition was a massive failure that the government and the American people had the good sense to step back from.
The war on drugs is an enormously expensive failure. It destroys more lives than the drugs themselves according the the Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme "Over the first 70 years of the twentieth century the US incarceration rate was characterized by a relative stability, with approximately 100 per 100,000 citizens suffering imprisonment at a given moment. The following 35 year period has seen a steep rise in this rate, with the figure reaching 491 per 100,000 in 2005. (US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005). More recent data suggests that this has risen still further since then". Effectively, the war on drugs quadrupled the proportion of the population being incarcerated
The war on drugs has transformed American policing in ways that the war on terror has only reinforced: You can't catch people with drugs in their home by simply banging on their door because they will simply flush the drugs down the toilet before you get into their home. You have to smash down their door in the dead of night to ensure evidence is not destroyed. The need to surprise your victims... errrr, suspects necessitates the use of body armor, the brandishing of firearms against people who have not threatened anyone in any way. Combine dead of night home invasions with firearms and you have a recipe for disaster: people killed because the police raided the wrong house, dogs gunned down with appalling frequency. A fourth amendment so battered as to be nearly irrelevant.
I'm sure that evangelical christians would agree with you. There are plenty of people like, say, Chick Fil A who would love to fire people for being "sinners"
from 27 CFR 478.41 "(a) Each person intending to engage in business as an importer or manufacturer of firearms or ammunition, or a dealer in firearms shall, before commencing such business, obtain the license required by this subpart for the business to be operated"
Note the word "business". As noted in numerous other posts, if you don't intend to engage in business, it is perfectly lawful to manufacture a firearm for personal use provided that weapon is not prohibited by the National Firearms Act (i.e. any weapon which fires more than 1 round per trigger pull, a grenade launcher or short barreled shotgun)
In the article, the termination of the lease is justified on the basis of a clause which prohibits using the device to do anything illegal. What the lessee used it for is not illegal. Short of seeing the actual document, that's enough information to form an opinion with a reasonable degree of confidence that the lessor is in violation of the lease contract. Otherwise they would have cited a clause that actually applies.
Oh great, in addition to crack labs in every city, there will be illegal ammo labs making fulminate of mercury blowing the fuck up every so often. Great News!
If there were, they would be citing that clause, not the clause that allows them to break the lease for using it for illegal purposes. Since manufacturing a firearm for personal use is legal, provided you do not attempt to sell or otherwise transfer the firearm to another person, the grounds they have claimed for breaking the lease don't exist.
Not to worry, they're just a bunch of rednecks from flyover country who are relying on reasons "most of which have no real factual basis". Pay no attention[/sarcasm]
You'll have to ask notorious conserative Justice John Paul Stevens about that: "Because Indiana’s cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek."
"Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?
"Necessary and proper", "Interstate Commerce". There are parts of the US Constitution which are sufficiently vague as to justify regulating people growing wheat for their own consumption, under the commerce clause, despite the people growing that wheat doing so solely for their own consumption. This suggests to me that the mere fact that an exercise of power is not authorized by the constitution is insufficient to prevent that exercise.
What's more, the experience in other nations without a bill of rights is that not having a bill of rights fails to protect rights in the fashion suggested by Hamilton (that's not a dispargement of Hamilton, an admirable and intelligent man). For example, in Australia, I quote from the Report of the Independent Inquiry into Media and Media Regulation ”In the United States, free speech is given primacy among rights, and therefore the potential harm caused by restrictions on speech is thought to outweigh the potential harm caused by speech that is not restricted. In Australia free speech does not necessarily have the same primacy”. This, from the Hon R. Finkelstein, QC. Oh how I wish my nation had a first amendment so that highly educated and respected legal practitioners would not treat democracies most fundamental right with such open disdain.
It's not the judge who screwed up. The judge followed the law as written exactly as she is supposed to. It was the legislature which screwed up here, 1st by not writing a law or proposing a state constitution amendment requiring secret ballots and 2nd by writing a law which disregarded the need for secret ballots.
The United States Supreme Court, in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board that voter ID requirements are constitutional so long as an ID complying with the law is available for free.
The united states supreme court has ruled in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board That voter ID laws do not violate the constitution so long as there is an ID card available for free that complies with the law. This was an opinion penned by justice John Paul Stevens, not widely regarded as one of the conservative justices.
Right. They're brown, have a different culture to ours and believe something that is different to what we believe. I'm missing the part where it follows from this that they are therefore equivalent to children or the mentally ill.
Slashdot Mirror
So all we have to do is find one goose which once had an injured wing?
Bush wasn't stupid is a liberal fact?
Has anyone, anywhere, ever, in the history of the universe, tried to suppress speech that didn't offend someone?
"Yes, I know. This is heavy" - Doc Brown
Yes, if you're an authoritarian gun nut (so long as authorities are the only ones with guns) who enjoys shooting peoples dogs as a means of intimidation or you're part of the increasingly lucrative imprisonment industry, it's great news. If you're one of the 500 people per 100000 population being incarcerated, not so much. Note that for the first 70 years of the 20th century, incarceration rates were stable at around 100 people per 100000 population.
Prohibition was a massive failure that the government and the American people had the good sense to step back from.
The war on drugs is an enormously expensive failure. It destroys more lives than the drugs themselves according the the Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme "Over the first 70 years of the twentieth century the US incarceration rate was characterized by a relative stability, with approximately 100 per 100,000 citizens suffering imprisonment at a given moment. The following 35 year period has seen a steep rise in this rate, with the figure reaching 491 per 100,000 in 2005. (US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005). More recent data suggests that this has risen still further since then". Effectively, the war on drugs quadrupled the proportion of the population being incarcerated
The war on drugs has transformed American policing in ways that the war on terror has only reinforced: You can't catch people with drugs in their home by simply banging on their door because they will simply flush the drugs down the toilet before you get into their home. You have to smash down their door in the dead of night to ensure evidence is not destroyed. The need to surprise your victims... errrr, suspects necessitates the use of body armor, the brandishing of firearms against people who have not threatened anyone in any way. Combine dead of night home invasions with firearms and you have a recipe for disaster: people killed because the police raided the wrong house, dogs gunned down with appalling frequency. A fourth amendment so battered as to be nearly irrelevant.
But outlawing tobacco will be different right?
I'm sure that evangelical christians would agree with you. There are plenty of people like, say, Chick Fil A who would love to fire people for being "sinners"
from 27 CFR 478.41 "(a) Each person intending to engage in business as an importer or manufacturer of firearms or ammunition, or a dealer in firearms shall, before commencing such business, obtain the license required by this subpart for the business to be operated"
Note the word "business". As noted in numerous other posts, if you don't intend to engage in business, it is perfectly lawful to manufacture a firearm for personal use provided that weapon is not prohibited by the National Firearms Act (i.e. any weapon which fires more than 1 round per trigger pull, a grenade launcher or short barreled shotgun)
Except that manufacturing a firearm is not illegal.
In the article, the termination of the lease is justified on the basis of a clause which prohibits using the device to do anything illegal. What the lessee used it for is not illegal. Short of seeing the actual document, that's enough information to form an opinion with a reasonable degree of confidence that the lessor is in violation of the lease contract. Otherwise they would have cited a clause that actually applies.
Oh great, in addition to crack labs in every city, there will be illegal ammo labs making fulminate of mercury blowing the fuck up every so often. Great News!
If there were, they would be citing that clause, not the clause that allows them to break the lease for using it for illegal purposes. Since manufacturing a firearm for personal use is legal, provided you do not attempt to sell or otherwise transfer the firearm to another person, the grounds they have claimed for breaking the lease don't exist.
Not to worry, they're just a bunch of rednecks from flyover country who are relying on reasons "most of which have no real factual basis". Pay no attention[/sarcasm]
You'll have to ask notorious conserative Justice John Paul Stevens about that: "Because Indiana’s cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek."
"Necessary and proper", "Interstate Commerce". There are parts of the US Constitution which are sufficiently vague as to justify regulating people growing wheat for their own consumption, under the commerce clause, despite the people growing that wheat doing so solely for their own consumption. This suggests to me that the mere fact that an exercise of power is not authorized by the constitution is insufficient to prevent that exercise.
What's more, the experience in other nations without a bill of rights is that not having a bill of rights fails to protect rights in the fashion suggested by Hamilton (that's not a dispargement of Hamilton, an admirable and intelligent man). For example, in Australia, I quote from the Report of the Independent Inquiry into Media and Media Regulation ”In the United States, free speech is given primacy among rights, and therefore the potential harm caused by restrictions on speech is thought to outweigh the potential harm caused by speech that is not restricted. In Australia free speech does not necessarily have the same primacy”. This, from the Hon R. Finkelstein, QC. Oh how I wish my nation had a first amendment so that highly educated and respected legal practitioners would not treat democracies most fundamental right with such open disdain.
It's not the judge who screwed up. The judge followed the law as written exactly as she is supposed to. It was the legislature which screwed up here, 1st by not writing a law or proposing a state constitution amendment requiring secret ballots and 2nd by writing a law which disregarded the need for secret ballots.
Fortunately, the US Constitution provides 2nd amendment solutions to that problem :)
Because practically every lawyer and lawmaker, internet or not, manages to miss it as well. What with it being inconvenient to the powerful and all.
The United States Supreme Court, in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board that voter ID requirements are constitutional so long as an ID complying with the law is available for free.
The united states supreme court has ruled in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board That voter ID laws do not violate the constitution so long as there is an ID card available for free that complies with the law. This was an opinion penned by justice John Paul Stevens, not widely regarded as one of the conservative justices.
Once the Russians started fielding carriers, I imagine they did. I can't think of a reason to do so prior.
Is that parking lot in Mecca? If so, hell yes. One problem, since it's possible said parking lot might be DC instead, I'll pass.
Right. They're brown, have a different culture to ours and believe something that is different to what we believe. I'm missing the part where it follows from this that they are therefore equivalent to children or the mentally ill.
No. There are not. Hate speech laws trample the 1st amendment.
Some non complicit muslims