I believe that in the UK, legal protection in favor of freedom of speech is quite stringent when the speech in question criticizes public officials. There is a qualified privilege that gives UK newspapers similar protection as they have in the US under the 1st Amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#Qualified_privilege
I believe Reynolds v. Times Newsp's Ltd (UK 1999) is one of the more noteworthy cases on this topic.
Simple, no one really feels that copyright infringement is a crime on the order of magnitude that the content producers want to treat it. If you want to fix the problem, change copyright law, don't allow loopholes around it. Change the law that is the problem.
I agree with you in principle however, for a consumer, changing copyright law is several orders of magnitude more difficult than it is to simply break copyright law without facing legal consequences.
In the year or so I used Napster, I bought far more CDs than I did in the entire 13 years I owned CD players prior to then . . ..
I HAVE used thepiratebay for timeshifting purposes, for example, if I missed an Arrested Development episode (before it was cancelled, obviously) or any other show I watch, I'd grab it off The Pirate Bay. I'd watch it and delete it (for the record, I often do buy the shows on TV).
Not me. Almost all of the media that I download I do *not* pay for, nor would I ever wish to pay for it. There are very few CDs that I've purchased after downloading, and mostly because I can't find the right music, or something with good enough quality.
I simply do not want to pay for media -- I want to pay as little as possible for it, and I want to obtain it as conveniently as possible. I would prefer everything to be freely available without restrictions on time or location. I prefer to get media for free at the library, if possible. About the only thing I am happy to pay for are fines for overdue material -- I consider it a donation to the cause.
I will also sneak into movies, sometimes just on principle.
The US 3-strikes rule is based on a concept from baseball, and as a result probably makes little sense in the UK. I'm surprised they didn't go with something more appropriate, like a "bowled, leg-before-wicket, or hit-wicket" and you're out rule.
From what I've seen the cost of retraining *always* comes up. And I'm skeptical about it.
I mean, for someone who is already familiar with MS Office, how could moving to Open Office require any serious retraining beyond a simple reference guide? The most substantive differences (e.g. advanced Excel functions) seem to be in exceptional, rare-use cases that are used by people who are very skilled at learning software quickly and on their own.
As a trained physicist I would like to extend that to include not just software developers but also Sci-Fi writers, politicians, the media, the general public and anyone who incorrectly uses the word "exponentially". In fact, people who use the word exponentially incorrectly are exponentially worse.
I hope it gives you some measure of hope that whenever I am about to extrapolate in casual conversation, I make it a point to distinguish between geometric and exponential growth.
If things will apparently increase at a merely linear rate, I try instead to change the subject to something more interesting.
Since I am not a trained physicist, suggestions for further conversational precision are welcome.
This will be a good test of our juctice system (cough) to see if the drug dealers get a lesser sentence because of some completely un-related shenannigans. I'm not saying the officers shouldn't be reprimanded to acting unprofessionally but this should in no way affect a judge's decision as how to punch the criminals.
Are you kidding me? This is a windfall for a defense attorney. Criminal trials require evidence to support every element of an alleged crime, and every element must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. You don't need a class in evidence class to understand that this kind of behavior can call into question the evidence found at the scene. That presumption of innocence is a high bar.
After seeing this footage, do you think a reasonable jury could conclude that these cops did not carefully processed the scene?
This kind of unprofessional bullshit will and should piss off good cops, because it undermines their work. Those idiots should be fired, not just reprimanded. It is unprofessional, and absolutely unacceptable behavior for someone vested with the power to kill under certain circumstances. How do you think those two fatasses would handle a $2k bribe, or an offer of a bj?
Since when has committing a crime unintentionally ever been a defense?
Sometimes, but more importantly it is pretty much always a mitigating factor. Your hypothetical person would be charged with reckless homicide, not capital murder (DUI = felony, murder = felony, having a gun during commission of a felony = felony). It sounds like he killed enough people in the anecdote for the differences to be semantic, but it's not nonexistent.
Intent does matter.
While intent does matter, intent can be transferable. For example if, intending to kill someone, you shoot at them, miss, and somehow kill forty innocent bystanders instead, your intent will suffice for forty counts of first degree murder.
Here, the guy intended to stalk and illegally access information from his g/f's home computer. He missed the mark and instead hit a hospital. That he intended specifically to stalk his girlfriend doesn't absolve him of the end result of his actions.
I'll add this: personally, I agree with you that Wickard v. Filburn was a poor decision, given the circumstances of the case. I also believe that Gonzales v. Raich was as well, for similar reasons.
Simply stated: states are certainly free to pass whatever measures they wish, including those that conflict with the US Constitution, the US Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, even explicitly against acts of Congress.
Passing such measures is one thing, but enforcing them is another; the federal government will, and consistently has, shut down attempts to enforce such measures. In the California examples, federal agencies could at any time resume raids that conflict with the state law, should the president order them to do so.
I hope you can understand why I think that your claim --that your given examples clearly demonstrate state authority-- is a nonstarter. As far as any measure will intrude on federal authority, it will be struck down. Regardless of your preference, that's how it is, and that's how it has been.
And your argument that state marijuana laws are superseded by Federal law is simply false, regardless of Gonzales v. Raich (and Wickard v. Filburn). The Federal government has been able to do next to nothing about it, which is, after all, the whole point. And yes, their justification is the Commerce Clause. See also the recent Montana and Tennessee laws regarding firearms. And countless others... as I stated, this is hardly a comprehensive list of examples.
At this point you're just repeating yourself. That doesn't make your argument any more convincing.
Your belief in the level of states' power is simply wishful thinking. If by "the federal government can do nothing", you mean about state legislatures passing laws that purport to encroach on federal authority, sure. States have been doing this since your beloved KY and VA resolutions.
Sure, states can pass such laws: they simply can't enforce them.
Your wishful thinking ignores the positive results of federal authority: eradicating slavery and the civil rights movements, for example, were two excellent examples of attempted tyrannies of the states.
As for state medical marijuana laws, which wou claim "Federal government has been able to do next to nothing about it."
The DEA and ATF have raided state medical marijuana dispensaries. While they've stopped doing so, this is because of an explicitly stated policy decision of the current administration not to enforce federal laws in the states where marijuana laws conflict with federal law, a voluntary choice. Such raids were common under the previous administration. And btw, Gonzales v. Raich was not in conflict with Wickard v. Filburn, it was based on it.
The MT and TN firearm laws are cute. As for a state legislature's ability to supersede federal gun regulation, refer to US v. Lopez.
It's as if you believe that there is only the possibility of a tyranny of the federal government, and that there would be no such thing as fifty smaller tyrannies of the states. Pick any state governor and state legislature out of a hat: can you honestly tell me that you'd much rather trust these wanna-be federal politicians?
As you didn't notice, I cited to a number of specific cases. A few points to demonstrate that you really are entirely misinformed:
-They VA & KY resolutions were passed by 2 state legislatures. As such, they have about as much authority over federal power as your average/. post.
-Marbury v. Madison was not in at all "about the Commerce Clause". Do you even know what the Commerce Clause is? It's the part of the constitution that says Congress has the power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes". If you want some ammo against the Commerce Clause, at least read up on Wickard v. Filburn.
Briefly: William Marbury was John Adam's appointment for a position in DC but the documents were not delivered before Madison became president, who subsequently denied Marbury's position.
-State marijuana laws do not defy the principle of Marbury v. Madison (again, which is SCOTUS review over acts of Congress) in any way. They conflict with federal law, and in Gonzales v. Raich (a decision I disagree with), SCOTUS allowed Federal drug law to pre-empt state drug law in the case of conflict. Under... the power of the Commerce Clause.
Essentially you're arguing your own interpretation of the proper allocation of Federal/State power. Your comments demonstrate that --like many of your ilk-- you simply haven't read the actual source material. You're not alone in your beliefs, but your arguments and positions have been consistently rejected over the past 2+ centuries.
If your team had its way, the South would still have slaves, states would be able to impose taxes on out-of-state traffic, ads for lead-based snake oil cure alls would be perfectly legal, and the US would not have gotten involved in WW2.
The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions. . . . established, without any doubt, that the Federal Government has no power to do ANYTHING that is not specifically listed as one of its defined powers, despite any language about "general welfare" or "necessary and proper".
You could argue with me for hours if you wanted, and I could just continue to supply you with historical documents and court decisions that show you to be wrong. But I probably wouldn't, because you would be wasting my time and everyone else's.
In your posts you haven't actually cited anything beyond the Federalist Papers, which, though informative, are not an authoritative source of US law. You simply claiming that you could point to source material if you wanted to is entirely unconvincing.
Your claim --" the Federal Government has no power to do ANYTHING that is not specifically listed as one of its defined powers"-- is simply wishful thinking on your part that you employ where federal policy conflicts with your personal ideology.
The powers of the federal government are by design flexible to allow for the unanticipated needs of the future. Start w/ Marbury v. Madison for an obvious example: nowhere in the US Constitution does it specifically say that the Supreme Court has the power to overturn laws passed by Congress.
The next obvious example is the Commerce Clause. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it specifically address almost any specific use of the Commerce Clause, from minimum wages to standardized labeling to prohibiting states discriminatory taxes on goods to favor their own state: this power has been interpreted and shaped by both Congress and the Supreme Court (again, whose power to overturn Congressional legislation isn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution). The body here ranges from Gibson v. Ogden to US v. Lopez.
The Constitution doesn't specifically say that states must not discriminate based on ethnicity; it merely refers to this generally under the Equal Protection clause. It took Brown v. Board of Education to specifically describe this particular power.
Etc etc etc. Look, if you'd like to actually provide primary sources of law (the Constitution, legislation, court cases, or regulation) to support your position, have at it. I won't hold my breath.
But if he's just carrying it, then the cop shows up, investigates, and tells the guy it would be a good idea to keep the gun in a case so he didn't frighten his neighbors. . . . If what someone is doing is suspicious but not illegal, you send someone out to make sure it doesn't become illegal, or they don't intend to do something illegal.
How the fuck was this trash modded insightful? For starters, ^that is exactly what happened. Bungee wasn't swarmed by a SWAT team. Cops showed up to a report of suspicious behavior, quickly assessed the situation, and recommended that the Bungee employee here use some common sense in the future. It took them all of ten minutes; their response was fast, appropriate, and professional.
They're not threatening to take away your precious fucking collection of assault weapons here; they're making sure that people wandering the streets carrying such things don't plan on using them for precisely what assault weapons are designed for -- to kill a lot of people, quickly.
You assault weapon nuts always ignore this salient point: assault weapons are specifically designed to kill a lot of people. That's why they are called "assault weapons" -- the word assault is there for a reason. It's not a difficult concept. Assault weapons are designed to assault. While it's great that you prefer to use them as a can opener, or because you like repeatedly cleaning them, or you enjoy jerking off to pictures of you posing with them in camo fatigues, they were not designed for any of these purposes.
Erring on the side of caution like the 9-11 caller here did is a perfectly appropriate response. If someone is pointing a gun at people, they are an instant away from pulling the trigger -- it's a little late to start making calls at that point. And your suggestion that someone who is concerned that a guy with what looks like a gun might start killing people should, instead look up the numbers of the nearby businesses to find out if anyone knows the guy is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
As a small business owner I have noticed that those "teens" turn in to my employees and think it's ok to text while working and then expect to get "good jobs" for showing up on time to work. In fact; I have a 17 year old girl who seems quite reasonable, say to me after showing up 20 minutes late that she thought, and I quote "I didn't think it was a big deal". This kind of thinking is not isolated, to her , it is very common in this age range of employees.
A lot of jobs certainly require punctuality --air traffic controllers, emergency room docs and nurses, hell even opening up the store on time. Yet often a demand for strict punctuality is simply a way to reinforce the boundaries between employer & employee, a way to reinforce who's in control. In a lot of jobs --especially the kind that a teenager would hold-- strict punctuality isn't particularly necessary for the job itself, so much as it reflects an employee's willingness to follow orders.
The emergence of flexible employee hours for positions that don't actually require strict timeliness demonstrates an employer's respect for his/her employees' time, and can ultimately result in higher productivity. This is a concept that is missing from the more traditional view that it is an absolute imperative that you clock in and out at precise times. Maybe your chronically late employee would be very well suited and highly productive in a position where being 20 minutes late actually isn't a big deal.
The fee structure is outdated now, but it made sense at the time PACER was first implemented as a cost-offsetting measure. These records are public, but the required labor and overhead must be accounted for. It's either use a per-use fee, or a dip into tax revenue.
The excess is supposedly used for court IT. It appears that their current focus is understandably on ECF, while non-court uses for court-generated material (any other public use, essentially) is deprioritized. While I applaud the increased public access, I hope Recap doesn't make too much of a dent on the excess PACER revenue. The US Courts IT budget is underfunded enough as it is.
While I don't agree with it in many respects, I don't think that the public policy justification is that difficult to understand, and thus more effectively discuss. This as crime reflects the belief that (1) this material can and will condition people to being erotically stimulated by sexual violence, and (2) doing so would decrease public safety, apparently by increasing violent crime.
Obscenity laws, right or wrong, are intended to address the vague border where speech turns into actions that damage others. By analogue, if someone claims that it their religious belief compels them to kill strangers on the street, it seems reasonable to confine them for public safety reasons, regardless of their right to religious freedom. As for free speech, people who support these laws have found some difference between a movie plot, part of which depicts a person successfully inciting a group to violently attack someone, and actually inciting violence in public (itself an extreme example of free speech).
The underlying aesthetic points to a puritan religious sensibility that treats sexuality as something utterly lacking of value, if not downright sinful. Thus, if something is intended primarily as wank material, it has little redeeming social or artistic value. I suspect that this influence is one reason why publicly-distributed pornography ~20 years older or more seems often to have more in the way of a plot line; many of the 1970s films are essentially bad movies with lots of gratuitious, extended, often looped sex scenes. The idea was that even some minimal plot would turn porn from pure wank material of zero value or worse to at least some story, however poorly told, of which a good part was wank material.
Property on a gravel road is worth less than property on a paved road. So, by their actions, the government has reduced the value of a landowner's property. Usually this triggers a lawsuit - which, if successful, could easily wipe out any savings.
No, it doesn't. You say "usually triggers a lawsuit" -- hell, point me *one* successful & analogous lawsuit and I'll stand corrected.
As for the reduced tax revenue, the arithmetic points to pretty clear savings. We have $90,000 per mile savings on roads, versus a decreased tax revenue that has to be estimated. So let's estimate 20 houses per mile, the value of which has decreased the values from $100k to $80k which menas a reduction in property taxes of ~$600 per house. I believe that each of these figures is rather generous estimate: I grew up in rural Michigan, so I took my real estimates for houses per mile and value, and doubled them (and used the MI state property tax estimator.)
That gives you $12,000/mile in lost property taxes compared to $90,000/mile in construction savings. You'd have to get 40 houses per mile whose values dropped 40% --and sustain those figures for each mile-- to approach the savings from this measure. I'm guessing that the municipalites have run much more accurate figures themselves and came up with the same conclusion: it's worth it.
The trial court's decision was upheld by the OH intermediate court of appeals. This case screams for an appeal up to the OH Supreme Court. The statute as applied here seems to fit right into the void-for-vagueness doctrine, which the US Supreme Court described as follows:
"Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warnings. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory applications." Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 -09 (1972), quoted in Village of Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, 455 U.S. 489, 498 (1982).
I believe that EULAs are considered part of the contract that was the original purchase, which itself was a contract (a legally enforceable promise to deliver goods in exchange for payment or promise of payment.) The consideration (aka bargained-for-exchange) present in the original purchase is sufficient.
If I got the question right on my contracts final, shrink-wrap & click-through EULAs are at this point generally held to be enforceable if they provide a reasonable time for rejection (by returning the merchandise.) This gives a consumer the option to agree by keeping it or reject the terms by returning it (see Hill v. Gateway 2000. http://www.lawnix.com/cases/hill-gateway.html.) So instead of signing to indicate their agreement, a customer indicates acceptance of the terms by performance (not returning it.)
Not all contracts must be written, not all written contracts must be signed, and not all written contracts even require consideration.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that in the UK, legal protection in favor of freedom of speech is quite stringent when the speech in question criticizes public officials. There is a qualified privilege that gives UK newspapers similar protection as they have in the US under the 1st Amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#Qualified_privilege
I believe Reynolds v. Times Newsp's Ltd (UK 1999) is one of the more noteworthy cases on this topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v_Times_Newspapers_Ltd
Why do we feel any different about Pirate Bay?
Simple, no one really feels that copyright infringement is a crime on the order of magnitude that the content producers want to treat it. If you want to fix the problem, change copyright law, don't allow loopholes around it. Change the law that is the problem.
I agree with you in principle however, for a consumer, changing copyright law is several orders of magnitude more difficult than it is to simply break copyright law without facing legal consequences.
Next time, try doing a little more research, like maybe checking the wikipedia article for the topic.
To be fair, checking the wikipedia article does not count as research. Checking the wikipedia cites: now *that's* research.
In the year or so I used Napster, I bought far more CDs than I did in the entire 13 years I owned CD players prior to then . . . .
I HAVE used thepiratebay for timeshifting purposes, for example, if I missed an Arrested Development episode (before it was cancelled, obviously) or any other show I watch, I'd grab it off The Pirate Bay. I'd watch it and delete it (for the record, I often do buy the shows on TV).
Not me. Almost all of the media that I download I do *not* pay for, nor would I ever wish to pay for it. There are very few CDs that I've purchased after downloading, and mostly because I can't find the right music, or something with good enough quality.
I simply do not want to pay for media -- I want to pay as little as possible for it, and I want to obtain it as conveniently as possible. I would prefer everything to be freely available without restrictions on time or location. I prefer to get media for free at the library, if possible. About the only thing I am happy to pay for are fines for overdue material -- I consider it a donation to the cause.
I will also sneak into movies, sometimes just on principle.
The US 3-strikes rule is based on a concept from baseball, and as a result probably makes little sense in the UK. I'm surprised they didn't go with something more appropriate, like a "bowled, leg-before-wicket, or hit-wicket" and you're out rule.
From what I've seen the cost of retraining *always* comes up. And I'm skeptical about it.
I mean, for someone who is already familiar with MS Office, how could moving to Open Office require any serious retraining beyond a simple reference guide? The most substantive differences (e.g. advanced Excel functions) seem to be in exceptional, rare-use cases that are used by people who are very skilled at learning software quickly and on their own.
As a trained physicist I would like to extend that to include not just software developers but also Sci-Fi writers, politicians, the media, the general public and anyone who incorrectly uses the word "exponentially". In fact, people who use the word exponentially incorrectly are exponentially worse.
I hope it gives you some measure of hope that whenever I am about to extrapolate in casual conversation, I make it a point to distinguish between geometric and exponential growth.
If things will apparently increase at a merely linear rate, I try instead to change the subject to something more interesting.
Since I am not a trained physicist, suggestions for further conversational precision are welcome.
This will be a good test of our juctice system (cough) to see if the drug dealers get a lesser sentence because of some completely un-related shenannigans. I'm not saying the officers shouldn't be reprimanded to acting unprofessionally but this should in no way affect a judge's decision as how to punch the criminals.
Are you kidding me? This is a windfall for a defense attorney. Criminal trials require evidence to support every element of an alleged crime, and every element must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. You don't need a class in evidence class to understand that this kind of behavior can call into question the evidence found at the scene. That presumption of innocence is a high bar.
After seeing this footage, do you think a reasonable jury could conclude that these cops did not carefully processed the scene?
This kind of unprofessional bullshit will and should piss off good cops, because it undermines their work. Those idiots should be fired, not just reprimanded. It is unprofessional, and absolutely unacceptable behavior for someone vested with the power to kill under certain circumstances. How do you think those two fatasses would handle a $2k bribe, or an offer of a bj?
Sometimes, but more importantly it is pretty much always a mitigating factor. Your hypothetical person would be charged with reckless homicide, not capital murder (DUI = felony, murder = felony, having a gun during commission of a felony = felony). It sounds like he killed enough people in the anecdote for the differences to be semantic, but it's not nonexistent.
Intent does matter.
While intent does matter, intent can be transferable. For example if, intending to kill someone, you shoot at them, miss, and somehow kill forty innocent bystanders instead, your intent will suffice for forty counts of first degree murder.
Here, the guy intended to stalk and illegally access information from his g/f's home computer. He missed the mark and instead hit a hospital. That he intended specifically to stalk his girlfriend doesn't absolve him of the end result of his actions.
I'll add this: personally, I agree with you that Wickard v. Filburn was a poor decision, given the circumstances of the case. I also believe that Gonzales v. Raich was as well, for similar reasons.
Simply stated: states are certainly free to pass whatever measures they wish, including those that conflict with the US Constitution, the US Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, even explicitly against acts of Congress.
Passing such measures is one thing, but enforcing them is another; the federal government will, and consistently has, shut down attempts to enforce such measures. In the California examples, federal agencies could at any time resume raids that conflict with the state law, should the president order them to do so.
I hope you can understand why I think that your claim --that your given examples clearly demonstrate state authority-- is a nonstarter. As far as any measure will intrude on federal authority, it will be struck down. Regardless of your preference, that's how it is, and that's how it has been.
And your argument that state marijuana laws are superseded by Federal law is simply false, regardless of Gonzales v. Raich (and Wickard v. Filburn). The Federal government has been able to do next to nothing about it, which is, after all, the whole point. And yes, their justification is the Commerce Clause. See also the recent Montana and Tennessee laws regarding firearms. And countless others... as I stated, this is hardly a comprehensive list of examples.
At this point you're just repeating yourself. That doesn't make your argument any more convincing.
Your belief in the level of states' power is simply wishful thinking. If by "the federal government can do nothing", you mean about state legislatures passing laws that purport to encroach on federal authority, sure. States have been doing this since your beloved KY and VA resolutions.
Sure, states can pass such laws: they simply can't enforce them.
Your wishful thinking ignores the positive results of federal authority: eradicating slavery and the civil rights movements, for example, were two excellent examples of attempted tyrannies of the states.
As for state medical marijuana laws, which wou claim "Federal government has been able to do next to nothing about it."
The DEA and ATF have raided state medical marijuana dispensaries. While they've stopped doing so, this is because of an explicitly stated policy decision of the current administration not to enforce federal laws in the states where marijuana laws conflict with federal law, a voluntary choice. Such raids were common under the previous administration. And btw, Gonzales v. Raich was not in conflict with Wickard v. Filburn, it was based on it.
The MT and TN firearm laws are cute. As for a state legislature's ability to supersede federal gun regulation, refer to US v. Lopez.
It's as if you believe that there is only the possibility of a tyranny of the federal government, and that there would be no such thing as fifty smaller tyrannies of the states. Pick any state governor and state legislature out of a hat: can you honestly tell me that you'd much rather trust these wanna-be federal politicians?
As you didn't notice, I cited to a number of specific cases. A few points to demonstrate that you really are entirely misinformed:
-They VA & KY resolutions were passed by 2 state legislatures. As such, they have about as much authority over federal power as your average /. post.
-Marbury v. Madison was not in at all "about the Commerce Clause". Do you even know what the Commerce Clause is? It's the part of the constitution that says Congress has the power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes". If you want some ammo against the Commerce Clause, at least read up on Wickard v. Filburn.
Briefly: William Marbury was John Adam's appointment for a position in DC but the documents were not delivered before Madison became president, who subsequently denied Marbury's position.
-State marijuana laws do not defy the principle of Marbury v. Madison (again, which is SCOTUS review over acts of Congress) in any way. They conflict with federal law, and in Gonzales v. Raich (a decision I disagree with), SCOTUS allowed Federal drug law to pre-empt state drug law in the case of conflict. Under... the power of the Commerce Clause.
Essentially you're arguing your own interpretation of the proper allocation of Federal/State power. Your comments demonstrate that --like many of your ilk-- you simply haven't read the actual source material. You're not alone in your beliefs, but your arguments and positions have been consistently rejected over the past 2+ centuries.
If your team had its way, the South would still have slaves, states would be able to impose taxes on out-of-state traffic, ads for lead-based snake oil cure alls would be perfectly legal, and the US would not have gotten involved in WW2.
I'm not familiar with this paper, but it looks a bit like the National Enquirer to me.
Some other headlines:
" Derren Brown predicts winning lottery numbers... and he'll reveal his method on Friday"
"Having my rapist's baby is the best thing I ever did"
The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions. . . . established, without any doubt, that the Federal Government has no power to do ANYTHING that is not specifically listed as one of its defined powers, despite any language about "general welfare" or "necessary and proper".
You could argue with me for hours if you wanted, and I could just continue to supply you with historical documents and court decisions that show you to be wrong. But I probably wouldn't, because you would be wasting my time and everyone else's.
In your posts you haven't actually cited anything beyond the Federalist Papers, which, though informative, are not an authoritative source of US law. You simply claiming that you could point to source material if you wanted to is entirely unconvincing.
Your claim --" the Federal Government has no power to do ANYTHING that is not specifically listed as one of its defined powers"-- is simply wishful thinking on your part that you employ where federal policy conflicts with your personal ideology.
The powers of the federal government are by design flexible to allow for the unanticipated needs of the future. Start w/ Marbury v. Madison for an obvious example: nowhere in the US Constitution does it specifically say that the Supreme Court has the power to overturn laws passed by Congress.
The next obvious example is the Commerce Clause. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it specifically address almost any specific use of the Commerce Clause, from minimum wages to standardized labeling to prohibiting states discriminatory taxes on goods to favor their own state: this power has been interpreted and shaped by both Congress and the Supreme Court (again, whose power to overturn Congressional legislation isn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution). The body here ranges from Gibson v. Ogden to US v. Lopez.
The Constitution doesn't specifically say that states must not discriminate based on ethnicity; it merely refers to this generally under the Equal Protection clause. It took Brown v. Board of Education to specifically describe this particular power.
Etc etc etc. Look, if you'd like to actually provide primary sources of law (the Constitution, legislation, court cases, or regulation) to support your position, have at it. I won't hold my breath.
But if he's just carrying it, then the cop shows up, investigates, and tells the guy it would be a good idea to keep the gun in a case so he didn't frighten his neighbors. . . . If what someone is doing is suspicious but not illegal, you send someone out to make sure it doesn't become illegal, or they don't intend to do something illegal.
How the fuck was this trash modded insightful? For starters, ^that is exactly what happened. Bungee wasn't swarmed by a SWAT team. Cops showed up to a report of suspicious behavior, quickly assessed the situation, and recommended that the Bungee employee here use some common sense in the future. It took them all of ten minutes; their response was fast, appropriate, and professional.
They're not threatening to take away your precious fucking collection of assault weapons here; they're making sure that people wandering the streets carrying such things don't plan on using them for precisely what assault weapons are designed for -- to kill a lot of people, quickly.
You assault weapon nuts always ignore this salient point: assault weapons are specifically designed to kill a lot of people. That's why they are called "assault weapons" -- the word assault is there for a reason. It's not a difficult concept. Assault weapons are designed to assault. While it's great that you prefer to use them as a can opener, or because you like repeatedly cleaning them, or you enjoy jerking off to pictures of you posing with them in camo fatigues, they were not designed for any of these purposes.
Erring on the side of caution like the 9-11 caller here did is a perfectly appropriate response. If someone is pointing a gun at people, they are an instant away from pulling the trigger -- it's a little late to start making calls at that point. And your suggestion that someone who is concerned that a guy with what looks like a gun might start killing people should, instead look up the numbers of the nearby businesses to find out if anyone knows the guy is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
As a small business owner I have noticed that those "teens" turn in to my employees and think it's ok to text while working and then expect to get "good jobs" for showing up on time to work. In fact; I have a 17 year old girl who seems quite reasonable, say to me after showing up 20 minutes late that she thought, and I quote "I didn't think it was a big deal". This kind of thinking is not isolated, to her , it is very common in this age range of employees.
A lot of jobs certainly require punctuality --air traffic controllers, emergency room docs and nurses, hell even opening up the store on time. Yet often a demand for strict punctuality is simply a way to reinforce the boundaries between employer & employee, a way to reinforce who's in control. In a lot of jobs --especially the kind that a teenager would hold-- strict punctuality isn't particularly necessary for the job itself, so much as it reflects an employee's willingness to follow orders.
The emergence of flexible employee hours for positions that don't actually require strict timeliness demonstrates an employer's respect for his/her employees' time, and can ultimately result in higher productivity. This is a concept that is missing from the more traditional view that it is an absolute imperative that you clock in and out at precise times. Maybe your chronically late employee would be very well suited and highly productive in a position where being 20 minutes late actually isn't a big deal.
Perhaps you should have used the preview button before submitting your post.
I previewed the post several times before posting and did several edits. Yet I still managed to overlook the Â; I'm terribly sorry about that typo.
Now if you'd like to discuss PACER and Recap, let's do that.
FOIA is the Freedom of Information Act, not the Free-as-in-free-beer of Information Act.
Processing court documents requires clerks and hardware, and that costs money. It will either be use fees or taxes; take your pick.
The fee structure is outdated now, but it made sense at the time PACER was first implemented as a cost-offsetting measure. These records are public, but the required labor and overhead must be accounted for. It's either use a per-use fee, or a dip into tax revenue.
The initial fee in $1 per minute in 1990. By 1996 it was down to 75Â per minute; in 1997 it moved to 7Â per page. http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/documents/epachron.pdf Now PACER's revenue generates a lot more than its administrative costs, by $150 million last year, according to NYT reporter John Schwartz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACER_(law)
The excess is supposedly used for court IT. It appears that their current focus is understandably on ECF, while non-court uses for court-generated material (any other public use, essentially) is deprioritized. While I applaud the increased public access, I hope Recap doesn't make too much of a dent on the excess PACER revenue. The US Courts IT budget is underfunded enough as it is.
While I don't agree with it in many respects, I don't think that the public policy justification is that difficult to understand, and thus more effectively discuss. This as crime reflects the belief that (1) this material can and will condition people to being erotically stimulated by sexual violence, and (2) doing so would decrease public safety, apparently by increasing violent crime.
Obscenity laws, right or wrong, are intended to address the vague border where speech turns into actions that damage others. By analogue, if someone claims that it their religious belief compels them to kill strangers on the street, it seems reasonable to confine them for public safety reasons, regardless of their right to religious freedom. As for free speech, people who support these laws have found some difference between a movie plot, part of which depicts a person successfully inciting a group to violently attack someone, and actually inciting violence in public (itself an extreme example of free speech).
The underlying aesthetic points to a puritan religious sensibility that treats sexuality as something utterly lacking of value, if not downright sinful. Thus, if something is intended primarily as wank material, it has little redeeming social or artistic value. I suspect that this influence is one reason why publicly-distributed pornography ~20 years older or more seems often to have more in the way of a plot line; many of the 1970s films are essentially bad movies with lots of gratuitious, extended, often looped sex scenes. The idea was that even some minimal plot would turn porn from pure wank material of zero value or worse to at least some story, however poorly told, of which a good part was wank material.
Property on a gravel road is worth less than property on a paved road. So, by their actions, the government has reduced the value of a landowner's property. Usually this triggers a lawsuit - which, if successful, could easily wipe out any savings.
No, it doesn't. You say "usually triggers a lawsuit" -- hell, point me *one* successful & analogous lawsuit and I'll stand corrected.
As for the reduced tax revenue, the arithmetic points to pretty clear savings. We have $90,000 per mile savings on roads, versus a decreased tax revenue that has to be estimated. So let's estimate 20 houses per mile, the value of which has decreased the values from $100k to $80k which menas a reduction in property taxes of ~$600 per house. I believe that each of these figures is rather generous estimate: I grew up in rural Michigan, so I took my real estimates for houses per mile and value, and doubled them (and used the MI state property tax estimator.)
That gives you $12,000/mile in lost property taxes compared to $90,000/mile in construction savings. You'd have to get 40 houses per mile whose values dropped 40% --and sustain those figures for each mile-- to approach the savings from this measure. I'm guessing that the municipalites have run much more accurate figures themselves and came up with the same conclusion: it's worth it.
The trial court's decision was upheld by the OH intermediate court of appeals. This case screams for an appeal up to the OH Supreme Court. The statute as applied here seems to fit right into the void-for-vagueness doctrine, which the US Supreme Court described as follows:
"Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warnings. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory applications." Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 -09 (1972), quoted in Village of Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, 455 U.S. 489, 498 (1982).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/15.html#f8
A truly remarkable story! Oh btw, which forum was that again...?
I believe that EULAs are considered part of the contract that was the original purchase, which itself was a contract (a legally enforceable promise to deliver goods in exchange for payment or promise of payment.) The consideration (aka bargained-for-exchange) present in the original purchase is sufficient.
If I got the question right on my contracts final, shrink-wrap & click-through EULAs are at this point generally held to be enforceable if they provide a reasonable time for rejection (by returning the merchandise.) This gives a consumer the option to agree by keeping it or reject the terms by returning it (see Hill v. Gateway 2000. http://www.lawnix.com/cases/hill-gateway.html.) So instead of signing to indicate their agreement, a customer indicates acceptance of the terms by performance (not returning it.)
Not all contracts must be written, not all written contracts must be signed, and not all written contracts even require consideration.
Go into these areas without your portable devices. No cell phone, no laptop. Et voila.