The Articles of Confederation were like the initial EU. But as the EU "grows" together, it's more like the US, but with explicit rules on leaving which the US had, but abolished as part of Reconstruction.
Local governments do not have constitutions typically though there are some exceptions.
A city is land within a state with a local constitution. They call it "incorporated" in many places. Counties generally don't have constitutions, though municipalities can, as they are often hybrid city/county constructs.
Murder isn't illegal on a federal level, so yes, if murder was legalized by a state, they would get a free ticket.
Some types of killing are illegal on a federal basis, but not the common definition of "murder" Drugs, on the other hand, are illegal on a federal basis. So a state legalizing something doesn't make it legal.
I worked for an employer that only seemed to drug test those who worked in the warehouse.
I had to get tested for a warehouse job. It wasn't the job that required it, but the government. Working with heavy machinery is a "high risk" position and there were restrictions on some of the equipment. The employer is required by the government to keep records of tests for health and safety reasons. Got tested at another job as part of a CDL program.
"Pre-employment – An employer must receive a negative drug test result before permitting a CDL driver to operate a CMV."
And it's possible to get an MJ positive *years* after last use. THC will build up in fat, so if someone looking for a job also does some other things to change their lives, like a cleanse and liquid diet, it's quite possible that they could score a positive long after last use. Even longer than hair goes back.
I've never heard of that. I've been exempt in Texas and Alaska for many years, and all had working hours spelled out clearly. Any requests for extension of those hours (for, say, a temporary project) were always accompanied with offers of comp time.
State-level marijuana legalization have a very real practical effect: you get pulled over by a STATE trooper, rather than the DEA, and you're fine, because he's not being paid to enforce federal law, and, under state law, you're good.
Unless you are in AZ, where the troopers are paid to enforce federal law, specifically the immigration laws. I have no idea of the status of that movement at the moment, but it's made headlines a few times where the AZ police will turn over illegals to the feds, despite no federal requirements to that effect.
Yes, no true scotsman pops out whenever libertarianism is insulted here. But no coward is forward enough to describe what it is to the point anyone can discuss it. Just what it isn't. It doesn't exist, for all I can tell.
Ah, so your boss could demand your receipt, and fire you if you don't provide it. Then he'll know how you voted. Or will it only tell you whether it was counted, not how? So the government can track your vote, but nobody else. And you can't tell whether your vote was counted the way you intended.
Yes, they are, but you can take steps to minimize this and there is a paper trail that can be followed/investigated. Electronic ballot box stuffing can be sneakier. If the code is written so that every 3rd vote for Candidate X is turned into a Candidate Y vote and Candidate X actually had 60% of the vote to Y's 40%, how will you know that Candidate Y didn't really win with 60% of the vote? (Y's 40% plus 20% from X's votes mismarked as for Y.)
If you trace every electronic vote to a specific voter (or receipt) then you'll know which are valid and which are not. Something no paper system does.
The polls have had wide errors in some specific places consistent with stuffing or loss of large chunks of votes, and nothing ever came of it. So even if they know something is up, nothing is done, and the voters don't care.
So you'd rather have a known bad system than one that works, but uses electrons.
With an electronic system there is no such transparency, and people might mistakenly believe that a complex arrangement of touch screens, spread sheets and Access databases was somehow secure and accurate.
Fuck off. I'm done.
The worst paper system always wins over the best electronic system
The best electronic system you can think of is a Rube Goldberg compilation of spread sheets and Access databases.
You are either an idiot or a liar. Either way, you've proven you are incapable of discussion, intelligent or otherwise.
What you fail to realize is that the Justices of the Supreme Court are no more infallible than the members of Congress or the men sitting in the office of President.
What you don't realize is that I realize that, and you look like an ignorant fool for lecturing others.
That means that just because the Supreme Court says something is constitutional does not mean that it is any more than a President signing it into law guarantees that it is constitutional.
I'm saying that if the legislature, executive, and judicial agree it's Constitutional, then it is, de facto Constitutional. Your opinion won't change legal fact. It takes any one of the branches to block something, and it's unconstitutional. Even if only the Executive tries to block it and the veto is overridden, most things take some enforcement, and the Executive controls the enforcement organizations.
Furthermore, Marbury v Madison says that the Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional, NOT that it can declare a law constitutional.
Rhetorical games won't change reality. Something ruled "not unconstitutional" is the same as "constitutional". Much like people incorrectly say found "innocent" when someone is found "not guilty" Incorrect, but not inaccurate.
There is something very scary about those who accept every ruling by the Supreme Court as infallible.
Even worse are idiots who assert their ignorant opinion as "better" than that of everyone in the US government, and 90% of the people they argue the points about.
So you are agreeing with me in the most disagreeable way possible? You can't pick out "good" votes from a spoiled box. Also, the courts have ruled against re-votes many times. So I wouldn't expect that to be common. So presently the choices fall back to "count everything" or "discard the box" and everything is counted, and the presumption that the 40,000 votes from a precinct of 200 are valid is accepted, because it's easier than the alternative.
As I said, you are rare. Most parents ask whether (and how) their children vote. Her voicing disgust at your voting is pressure. That you choose to ignore it doesn't change what it is.
Like said before, how does a blind person vote using a touch screen?
Like I answered before, most blind people can read.
Provide at least some braille ballots,
Like I answered before, they are required to by lay, but don't.
Since we have to worry about myriad variations of disabilities, we just have to face the idea that some voters will need human assistance.
That's why e-vote was pushed through. You don't have to vote by "trouchscreen" for e-vote, as you wrongly assert. You can vote by sound as well. Speak all the names, hit the "vote now" button when you hear the one you want. No sight needed, and easier than braille
As for the 'large number' who can't follow simple instructions that should have been drilled into them during grade school, some of that spoilage is indecision and deliberate spoilage. Somebody puts the pencil/pen on the mark then decides against it. The solution there is to publish clear guidelines on what's a mark and what is not.
The next step is to feed the ballots into a scanner that does an initial check for spoilage and rejects it if something bad is found. Incomplete marks, stray marks, etc... If it's good, it records the votes in it's memory while dumping the ballot into the box.
Alternatively, you load the ballots into a printer and use the software to print the ballots, where the voter can read the ballot before submitting it. Widespread computer failure, more voters than expected? You hand out pens and people do it manually.
As for stuffing the ballot box, that's why you have voting officials, representatives from ALL parties, and even a neutral voting rights representative. The box is locked in a couple ways, and sealed in even more(tamper-obvious). Think of the way banks handle large sums of money.
Or rather than all that, you can use e-vote, where a stray mark *can't* spoil the vote. It counts. Every one. Like it says on the screen or paper receipt.
That's why the e-vote was based on the lever machines. You set everything, double checked it, and pulled the lever. When the lever is pulled, it "saves" your vote in an unambiguous manner. People thought paper ballots were unambiguous, until Florida 2000.
Not allowed by the courts. You have to have elections certified sooner than that, and a re-vote isn't fair to people who planned years for the first Tuesday of November vote.
I have never felt any pressure from my family to vote in a particular way.
Then you are alone. When something like 90% of people vote the way their parents did at the same age, it would seem that there's something familial in it. Sharing values, talking politics, gentle guidance. Not like used-car salesman pressure, but something.
So assuming you live in one of the 33 states that require some form of ID, the only feasible way to game the system as it is currently designed would be to have a bunch of people vote provisionally for people they don't think will vote, and hope that they don't get caught, and hope that the people really don't vote. But that would be taking a *very* big personal risk.
What risk is there? Do they take your photo, fingreprints or DNA? All they have is your signature of someone else's name? What's the risk they will get caught? They'll vote in the morning, and be long gone before the real person shows up, and there'll be nothing to track them down with.
Again, that's just as easily handled in other ways. It just requires voters to perform a two-stage voting process.
I like your two-stage vote, but nobody has ever done anything like it. It's trivial to prevent most of the fraud we have. Most of it seems to be in the form of ballot stuffing, and neither of the major parties want to stop that. If they did, they would have.
But it is anonymous. Every payment you receive, you can pay to yourself in a new wallet. So when you spend it, people can't trace it back directly to the previous trade. When you remove your anonymity to collect a physical item, yes, you lose anonymity, but it's not bitcoin that's removing anonymity.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you aren't a very good one. You can think of how to break it, but not how to make it better.
The Articles of Confederation were like the initial EU. But as the EU "grows" together, it's more like the US, but with explicit rules on leaving which the US had, but abolished as part of Reconstruction.
Local governments do not have constitutions typically though there are some exceptions.
A city is land within a state with a local constitution. They call it "incorporated" in many places. Counties generally don't have constitutions, though municipalities can, as they are often hybrid city/county constructs.
You don't cage the laying hen.
Murder isn't illegal on a federal level, so yes, if murder was legalized by a state, they would get a free ticket.
Some types of killing are illegal on a federal basis, but not the common definition of "murder" Drugs, on the other hand, are illegal on a federal basis. So a state legalizing something doesn't make it legal.
Yes, some corporations demand a test. I tell them that's not negotiable.
In some cases, the feds require the tests, not the corporation. The corporation just follows the laws.
I worked for an employer that only seemed to drug test those who worked in the warehouse.
I had to get tested for a warehouse job. It wasn't the job that required it, but the government. Working with heavy machinery is a "high risk" position and there were restrictions on some of the equipment. The employer is required by the government to keep records of tests for health and safety reasons. Got tested at another job as part of a CDL program.
"Pre-employment – An employer must receive a negative drug test result before permitting a CDL driver to operate a CMV."
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regul...
That doesn't give you the right to examine someone's body fluids.
So you want to make it illegal to ask others for tests? Would that apply to STD screening?
Because if someone comes to work stoned, and you don't have a testing policy in place, it can take months or longer to fire them.
And it's possible to get an MJ positive *years* after last use. THC will build up in fat, so if someone looking for a job also does some other things to change their lives, like a cleanse and liquid diet, it's quite possible that they could score a positive long after last use. Even longer than hair goes back.
I've never heard of that. I've been exempt in Texas and Alaska for many years, and all had working hours spelled out clearly. Any requests for extension of those hours (for, say, a temporary project) were always accompanied with offers of comp time.
State-level marijuana legalization have a very real practical effect: you get pulled over by a STATE trooper, rather than the DEA, and you're fine, because he's not being paid to enforce federal law, and, under state law, you're good.
Unless you are in AZ, where the troopers are paid to enforce federal law, specifically the immigration laws. I have no idea of the status of that movement at the moment, but it's made headlines a few times where the AZ police will turn over illegals to the feds, despite no federal requirements to that effect.
Yes, no true scotsman pops out whenever libertarianism is insulted here. But no coward is forward enough to describe what it is to the point anyone can discuss it. Just what it isn't. It doesn't exist, for all I can tell.
Ah, so your boss could demand your receipt, and fire you if you don't provide it. Then he'll know how you voted. Or will it only tell you whether it was counted, not how? So the government can track your vote, but nobody else. And you can't tell whether your vote was counted the way you intended.
Yes, they are, but you can take steps to minimize this and there is a paper trail that can be followed/investigated. Electronic ballot box stuffing can be sneakier. If the code is written so that every 3rd vote for Candidate X is turned into a Candidate Y vote and Candidate X actually had 60% of the vote to Y's 40%, how will you know that Candidate Y didn't really win with 60% of the vote? (Y's 40% plus 20% from X's votes mismarked as for Y.)
If you trace every electronic vote to a specific voter (or receipt) then you'll know which are valid and which are not. Something no paper system does.
The polls have had wide errors in some specific places consistent with stuffing or loss of large chunks of votes, and nothing ever came of it. So even if they know something is up, nothing is done, and the voters don't care.
With an electronic system there is no such transparency, and people might mistakenly believe that a complex arrangement of touch screens, spread sheets and Access databases was somehow secure and accurate.
Fuck off. I'm done.
The worst paper system always wins over the best electronic system
The best electronic system you can think of is a Rube Goldberg compilation of spread sheets and Access databases.
You are either an idiot or a liar. Either way, you've proven you are incapable of discussion, intelligent or otherwise.
What you fail to realize is that the Justices of the Supreme Court are no more infallible than the members of Congress or the men sitting in the office of President.
What you don't realize is that I realize that, and you look like an ignorant fool for lecturing others.
That means that just because the Supreme Court says something is constitutional does not mean that it is any more than a President signing it into law guarantees that it is constitutional.
I'm saying that if the legislature, executive, and judicial agree it's Constitutional, then it is, de facto Constitutional. Your opinion won't change legal fact. It takes any one of the branches to block something, and it's unconstitutional. Even if only the Executive tries to block it and the veto is overridden, most things take some enforcement, and the Executive controls the enforcement organizations.
Furthermore, Marbury v Madison says that the Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional, NOT that it can declare a law constitutional.
Rhetorical games won't change reality. Something ruled "not unconstitutional" is the same as "constitutional". Much like people incorrectly say found "innocent" when someone is found "not guilty" Incorrect, but not inaccurate.
There is something very scary about those who accept every ruling by the Supreme Court as infallible.
Even worse are idiots who assert their ignorant opinion as "better" than that of everyone in the US government, and 90% of the people they argue the points about.
So you are agreeing with me in the most disagreeable way possible? You can't pick out "good" votes from a spoiled box. Also, the courts have ruled against re-votes many times. So I wouldn't expect that to be common. So presently the choices fall back to "count everything" or "discard the box" and everything is counted, and the presumption that the 40,000 votes from a precinct of 200 are valid is accepted, because it's easier than the alternative.
As I said, you are rare. Most parents ask whether (and how) their children vote. Her voicing disgust at your voting is pressure. That you choose to ignore it doesn't change what it is.
Like said before, how does a blind person vote using a touch screen?
Like I answered before, most blind people can read.
Provide at least some braille ballots,
Like I answered before, they are required to by lay, but don't.
Since we have to worry about myriad variations of disabilities, we just have to face the idea that some voters will need human assistance.
That's why e-vote was pushed through. You don't have to vote by "trouchscreen" for e-vote, as you wrongly assert. You can vote by sound as well. Speak all the names, hit the "vote now" button when you hear the one you want. No sight needed, and easier than braille
As for the 'large number' who can't follow simple instructions that should have been drilled into them during grade school, some of that spoilage is indecision and deliberate spoilage. Somebody puts the pencil/pen on the mark then decides against it. The solution there is to publish clear guidelines on what's a mark and what is not.
The next step is to feed the ballots into a scanner that does an initial check for spoilage and rejects it if something bad is found. Incomplete marks, stray marks, etc... If it's good, it records the votes in it's memory while dumping the ballot into the box.
Alternatively, you load the ballots into a printer and use the software to print the ballots, where the voter can read the ballot before submitting it. Widespread computer failure, more voters than expected? You hand out pens and people do it manually.
As for stuffing the ballot box, that's why you have voting officials, representatives from ALL parties, and even a neutral voting rights representative. The box is locked in a couple ways, and sealed in even more(tamper-obvious). Think of the way banks handle large sums of money.
Or rather than all that, you can use e-vote, where a stray mark *can't* spoil the vote. It counts. Every one. Like it says on the screen or paper receipt.
That's why the e-vote was based on the lever machines. You set everything, double checked it, and pulled the lever. When the lever is pulled, it "saves" your vote in an unambiguous manner. People thought paper ballots were unambiguous, until Florida 2000.
Not allowed by the courts. You have to have elections certified sooner than that, and a re-vote isn't fair to people who planned years for the first Tuesday of November vote.
I have never felt any pressure from my family to vote in a particular way.
Then you are alone. When something like 90% of people vote the way their parents did at the same age, it would seem that there's something familial in it. Sharing values, talking politics, gentle guidance. Not like used-car salesman pressure, but something.
So assuming you live in one of the 33 states that require some form of ID, the only feasible way to game the system as it is currently designed would be to have a bunch of people vote provisionally for people they don't think will vote, and hope that they don't get caught, and hope that the people really don't vote. But that would be taking a *very* big personal risk.
What risk is there? Do they take your photo, fingreprints or DNA? All they have is your signature of someone else's name? What's the risk they will get caught? They'll vote in the morning, and be long gone before the real person shows up, and there'll be nothing to track them down with.
Again, that's just as easily handled in other ways. It just requires voters to perform a two-stage voting process.
I like your two-stage vote, but nobody has ever done anything like it. It's trivial to prevent most of the fraud we have. Most of it seems to be in the form of ballot stuffing, and neither of the major parties want to stop that. If they did, they would have.
But it is anonymous. Every payment you receive, you can pay to yourself in a new wallet. So when you spend it, people can't trace it back directly to the previous trade. When you remove your anonymity to collect a physical item, yes, you lose anonymity, but it's not bitcoin that's removing anonymity.