"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" does not include records that document financial transactions.
Because some bureaucrat says "records" are not "papers or effects?" Or because there's "no expectation of privacy," even though there are explicit written privacy contracts between the parties? If a court goes along with such bullshit, the King has no clothes. The end does not justify the means, and it's better than one person gets away with something than that millions have their rights violated.
Well, that's a typical lawyer response, meaning it's not a response at all. The question boils down to whether a design defect is present from day one, and should therefore be covered under warranty, or if it's only a defect after an actual failure occurs (i.e. root [distal] cause - the phone wasn't adequately designed to withstand ordinary use vs proximate cause - the solder joint eventually broke because of flexing).
I'd be interested to hear from a real lawyer here - warranties are typically time limited, and cover defects in material and workmanship.
But, the actual defect in design (i.e. "workmanship") is present from day 1, within the warranty period. So, should not the warranty for such defects apply indefinitely, even if they do not manifest until later?
(I understand that a lawyer could take either side of the argument, money permitting. But, is there any case law in this regard.)
"Democratic process? People go and vote, one person, one vote to be counted. Is it then fair, to filter those votes by state through another element - electoral college"
The US has never been a direct democracy. And the choice of a President has never been promised to be based on a popular vote. The Constitution allows states to chose their electors in any manner they wish - if a state wanted do away with the popular vote and have the Governor chose them, it could.
And why is it somehow unfair that the results of the Electoral College don't match the results of a popular vote? The US is a federation of states, so it's also unfair if the President can be chosen by a minority of states.
There are a lot of people who lease cars, too. Easy - just exchange it every few years, but at a price because they're making more even more money from you.
Be sure to buy the maintenance, too, because otherwise buying a new one makes more sense than getting it fixed.
Myself, I'm more likely to buy a basic laptop with a minimal HDD, then upgrade it to SSD, ending up with more for less than the manufacturer offers. Same for RAM.
It is to the person who submitted the article, who is now pissed that they didn't take the offer when it was available. It's not news, or even interesting, to anyone else.
It depends on whether that rep had the authority to do so. Just because the bank janitor says you can take some cash from the vault, doesn't mean you're not stealing.
Not quite. It blows more air into the exhaust pre-catalyst. The engine also runs a bit rich deliberately. Both happen for a short time after a cold start, and the net effect is to put fuel and oxygen into the catalytic converter, which heats it up and gets it working faster, which reduces emissions.
...one of such persons, while any locomotive is in motion, shall precede such locomotive on foot by not less than sixty yards, and shall carry a red flag constantly displayed, and shall warn the riders and drivers of horses of the approach of such locomotives, and shall signal the driver thereof when it shall be necessary to stop, and shall assist horses, and carriages drawn by horses, passing the same
That's all an argument for reducing powers the federal government has usurped (Commerce Clause abuse), and giving them back to the states. Let there be diversity between the states, instead of a federal government which forces them all to be (essentially) the same.
And really, you claim "cohesive nation?" Haven't you been paying attention to current events?
The answer to 1 and 3 is that there is no Constitutional requirement for a vote. The method of choosing Electors is up to the states. If a state wanted to have their legislature, or their Congressmen, or their Governor choose the Electors, they could.
The answer to 2 is that not all states are winner takes all. A couple vote by congressional district, with the 2 "Senate" electors going to the overall winner. But again, that's entirely up to the states, and there's no need for a change at the Federal level needed to change it.
Please explain, in your view, why Electors were given for Senators, and not just Representatives. Also why, if there should be no winner of a majority in the Electoral College, each state receives an equal (i.e. one) vote in the House "run-off" election.
Slashdot Mirror
Because some bureaucrat says "records" are not "papers or effects?" Or because there's "no expectation of privacy," even though there are explicit written privacy contracts between the parties? If a court goes along with such bullshit, the King has no clothes. The end does not justify the means, and it's better than one person gets away with something than that millions have their rights violated.
I asked if there was case law. That's a positive or negative, with bonus points for a citation.
Well, that's a typical lawyer response, meaning it's not a response at all. The question boils down to whether a design defect is present from day one, and should therefore be covered under warranty, or if it's only a defect after an actual failure occurs (i.e. root [distal] cause - the phone wasn't adequately designed to withstand ordinary use vs proximate cause - the solder joint eventually broke because of flexing).
"Maybe a patch."
You misspelled "kludge."
I'd be interested to hear from a real lawyer here - warranties are typically time limited, and cover defects in material and workmanship.
But, the actual defect in design (i.e. "workmanship") is present from day 1, within the warranty period. So, should not the warranty for such defects apply indefinitely, even if they do not manifest until later?
(I understand that a lawyer could take either side of the argument, money permitting. But, is there any case law in this regard.)
You're touching it wrong.
"Democratic process? People go and vote, one person, one vote to be counted. Is it then fair, to filter those votes by state through another element - electoral college"
The US has never been a direct democracy. And the choice of a President has never been promised to be based on a popular vote. The Constitution allows states to chose their electors in any manner they wish - if a state wanted do away with the popular vote and have the Governor chose them, it could.
And why is it somehow unfair that the results of the Electoral College don't match the results of a popular vote? The US is a federation of states, so it's also unfair if the President can be chosen by a minority of states.
There are a lot of people who lease cars, too. Easy - just exchange it every few years, but at a price because they're making more even more money from you.
Be sure to buy the maintenance, too, because otherwise buying a new one makes more sense than getting it fixed.
Myself, I'm more likely to buy a basic laptop with a minimal HDD, then upgrade it to SSD, ending up with more for less than the manufacturer offers. Same for RAM.
It is to the person who submitted the article, who is now pissed that they didn't take the offer when it was available. It's not news, or even interesting, to anyone else.
Buy or don't buy. There is no upgrade.
Try posting when you're not high, and can write understandable English.
Really? I mean really? Is English a second language for you? They were telling the system that games were played which had not been played.
Fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain. How is it not fraud?
It depends on whether that rep had the authority to do so. Just because the bank janitor says you can take some cash from the vault, doesn't mean you're not stealing.
two must be better!
The rules of the test include "no cheating," which means no "defeat devices". So, to answer your question, no, it did not pass the test.
Not quite. It blows more air into the exhaust pre-catalyst. The engine also runs a bit rich deliberately. Both happen for a short time after a cold start, and the net effect is to put fuel and oxygen into the catalytic converter, which heats it up and gets it working faster, which reduces emissions.
It does not, as you say, merely dilute emissions.
You can still get print subscriptions to the New York Times.
"Perhaps it should sound like an ice cream vendor?"
That's the solution - get all the children to run into the street!
Red Flag Laws
That's all an argument for reducing powers the federal government has usurped (Commerce Clause abuse), and giving them back to the states. Let there be diversity between the states, instead of a federal government which forces them all to be (essentially) the same.
And really, you claim "cohesive nation?" Haven't you been paying attention to current events?
Claiming something is unfair with no argument as to why, while ignoring how and why the system was designed to be fair is ignorant.
The answer to 1 and 3 is that there is no Constitutional requirement for a vote. The method of choosing Electors is up to the states. If a state wanted to have their legislature, or their Congressmen, or their Governor choose the Electors, they could.
The answer to 2 is that not all states are winner takes all. A couple vote by congressional district, with the 2 "Senate" electors going to the overall winner. But again, that's entirely up to the states, and there's no need for a change at the Federal level needed to change it.
Please explain, in your view, why Electors were given for Senators, and not just Representatives. Also why, if there should be no winner of a majority in the Electoral College, each state receives an equal (i.e. one) vote in the House "run-off" election.
You fall under the "ignorant" category.