When I worked at a public library in Virginia, we were told that we weren't allowed to show someone how to use the index of the federal and state codes without having a license to practice law in Virginia. I've heard similar tales of Texas. I am not a lawyer, so I can't possibly understand whether or not what I just typed related to actual law or whimsy.
Some states have ridiculously pedantic laws about who can practice law, or give legal advice. Then they have really wide interpretations of what constitutes "legal advice".
So often times, it becomes a matter of policy for various institutions to reduce their liability. They typically are told to do this by their lawyers.
In all seriousness, they're probably our best tool invented to date.
There is of course the horrible situation that even when well-studied Lawyers and RFC "rules lawyers" get together, they can still disagree about things.
Then, when you get a person to decide their differing opinions, no one goes back and annotates the original source, so you end up with hojillions of instances of case law that you have to read to properly understand the law.
Basically he was guilty of not providing the passwords to his superiors. This is equivalent to being hired by the city to build a new stadium and then refusing to give the city the keys. I do not know what everyone is so up in arms about.
I would like to say I agree. This individual juror, who has come out, is actually the best person we at Slashdot could ask for. He's knowledgeable about IT and computers.
A religious emblem of faith, or some other form of religiousity, is a requirement for the Bear and Webelos badges, and by extension the Arrow of Light.
So, they are religiously discriminating.
From the "Membership controversy page" on Wikipedia:
The Boy Scouts of America makes a division between its Scouting programs and the Learning for Life program. The Scouting programs are Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting, and Venturing. The policies that are considered controversial apply only to the Scouting programs.
Also in 2001, the BSA "revoked the charters of several Cub Scout packs in Oak Park, Illinois, because the sponsors, a parent-teacher group, adhered to a nondiscrimination policy."
In 1991, twin brothers William and Michael Randall, who had refused to recite the "duty to God" portion of the Cub Scout Promise and Boy Scout Oath, sued to be allowed to continue in the program (see Randall v. Orange County Council and Welsh v. Boy Scouts of America).[49] In addition, there were several other lawsuits involving essentially the same issues.[50] Ultimately, the courts ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts of America in each case.
Any cursory Google search will show that Cub Scouts has actively discriminated against atheists, and LGBT persons.
The Boy Scouts are the ones that hate atheists and gays. Not sure about the Cub Scouts but a quick perusal of the Wikipedia article suggests that they have no such offensive policies.
Straight from the Wikipedia page:
The Cub Scouts are a division of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA).
The court also got "implicit consent" wrong, and any "implicit consent" provisions should be outlawed. Requiring "implicit consent" to search for a common activity (like driving) is just as wrong as requiring "implicit consent" to search for an activity like signing a mortgage. Consent should always be explicit and individual. Anything else requires probable cause.
The courts didn't have anything to do with this consent.
It's explicitly spelled out in state statutes that if you want to drive you must grant the state consent to give you a breathalyzer. Failure to grant said consent means you do not get the privilege to drive.
At many checkpoints I've seen, Breathalyzers are performed. A biological test is absolutely a search, and indeed the Fourth Amendment specifically mentions the security of one's "person" as part of what should be free from search without probable cause.
In most states that I am aware of, you give implicit consent to breathalyzers by operating a vehicle on the road.
The problem is that state and local government do not have the authority or jurisdiction to enforce federal laws.
Citation needed. Is your claim really that if a local LEO observes someone breaking a Federal law he can't do anything about it other than call the FBI/US Marshals/etc? If I threaten to kill Barack Obama (Federal crime to threaten POTUS) in front of the local police station they can't arrest me? If I destroy a mailbox I can't be arrested by a non-Federal LEO? If I rob a bank the FBI or USSS are the only ones that can arrest me?
Threatening to kill ANYONE is also a state crime. Destroying another's property is also a state crime. Theft and robbery are also state crimes.
The local LEOs have laws which allow them to intercede, but the federal LEOs will take over because the penalties are typically higher.
Actually, the Constitution provides a list of things that the Federal Government CAN do, not a list of things the states cannot do. This law is perfectly constitutional
So, even though Article I, Section 8 only explicitly states what the Federal Congress can do, the individual States can borrow money on the credit of the United States? Establish Post Offices? define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas?
So long as a checkpoint is not applied selectively they are not nominally infringing on someone's rights. Police are not allowed to stop individual cars without cause, but they are allowed to stop all cars with a reasonable public safety purpose.
Let's rephrase:
So long as home searches are not applied selectively they are not nominally infringing on someone's rights. Police are not allowed to search individual homes without cause, but they are allowed to search every home in the neighborhood with a reasonable public safety purpose.
The courts may have indeed agreed with you. They got it wrong. Individual and reasonable suspicion should always be required for such actions. Doing it to a lot of people makes it less acceptable, not more.
They're not allowed to SEARCH your car either at a checkpoint. They're simply allowed to ask you questions.
I believe that it would be legal for Police to canvas an neighborhood and ask all the houses some simple questions.
You're missing the point that checkpoints themselves are not illegal, but it's rather the actions taken that can make them illegal: such as searching every car, or even searching randomly selected cars.
Checkpoints are different from stopping someone. A checkpoint is applied to all individuals driving through it.
Indeed; infringing everyone's rights is far better than infringing some people's rights.
No one's rights are being violated by holding checkpoints. You might disagree, but the courts agree with me.
So long as a checkpoint is not applied selectively they are not nominally infringing on someone's rights. Police are not allowed to stop individual cars without cause, but they are allowed to stop all cars with a reasonable public safety purpose.
Checkpoints are different from stopping someone. A checkpoint is applied to all individuals driving through it.
Indeed; infringing everyone's rights is far better than infringing some people's rights.
No one's rights are being violated by holding checkpoints. You might disagree, but the courts agree with me.
So long as a checkpoint is not applied selectively they are not nominally infringing on someone's rights. Police are not allowed to stop individual cars without cause, but they are allowed to stop all cars with a reasonable public safety purpose.
Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have power... To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization"
(The rest of the items in this section are pretty clearly exclusive rights of the Federal government, such as "borrow money on the credit of the United States;")
As immigration laws are part of the naturalization process the States are most likely explicitly barred from enforcing immigration.
As for "liberal national socialist"... the National socialists were conservatives...
OK, let's go for the 14th amendment then. SB 1070 states that a police officer can go up to anyone and ask about their immigration status if they have "reasonable suspicion." Reasonable suspicion in this case could easily translate to "brown skin." No papers = possible jail. The 14th amendment was created to stop states from passing laws that override the clause in the constitution that "all men are created equal."
The law requires the officer to make lawful contact before having reasonable suspicion.
In reality, the Arizona bill is not much different than the federal law on illegal immigration (which obviously just isn't enforced).
There is the question as to if Arizona has the ability to enforce federal laws. As far as I'm aware, state LEOs cannot arrest you for a Federal crime, that's why they're attempting to make them able to arrest someone for this particular Federal crime. However, they didn't reproduce the federal laws, they simply require the state LEOs to enforce the Federal law directly. I don't believe this would meet constitutional muster.
And the illegal immigration law is being enforced. Arizona has drug laws, but I'm sure marijuana is just as rampant there as it is in any other state. Does that mean that they're not being enforced?
Rather, Arizona is upset that the federal government isn't enforcing their laws strongly enough.
And if we had a big problem with literally tens of millions of Germans sneaking into this country by illegally crossing its borders, then maybe I'd see your point.
I'm sure you're just using hyperbole, but you did say "literally"... Mexico only has a population of 100 million in the first place. Do you really think that nearly 20% of Mexico is illegally crossing the borders into the USA?
Also, somewhere around half of the illegal immigrants in the USA crossed the border legally... they've simply overstayed their permission.
Slashdot Mirror
When I worked at a public library in Virginia, we were told that we weren't allowed to show someone how to use the index of the federal and state codes without having a license to practice law in Virginia. I've heard similar tales of Texas. I am not a lawyer, so I can't possibly understand whether or not what I just typed related to actual law or whimsy.
Some states have ridiculously pedantic laws about who can practice law, or give legal advice. Then they have really wide interpretations of what constitutes "legal advice".
So often times, it becomes a matter of policy for various institutions to reduce their liability. They typically are told to do this by their lawyers.
Lawyers and Network Engineers.
In all seriousness, they're probably our best tool invented to date.
There is of course the horrible situation that even when well-studied Lawyers and RFC "rules lawyers" get together, they can still disagree about things.
Then, when you get a person to decide their differing opinions, no one goes back and annotates the original source, so you end up with hojillions of instances of case law that you have to read to properly understand the law.
I have actually been thinking about this.
Just like Computer Science got Design Patterns from architecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander)
Lawmakes should take the concept of refactoring from computer science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_refactoring)
They kind of do, consult Restatement of torts, etc.
Basically he was guilty of not providing the passwords to his superiors. This is equivalent to being hired by the city to build a new stadium and then refusing to give the city the keys. I do not know what everyone is so up in arms about.
I would like to say I agree. This individual juror, who has come out, is actually the best person we at Slashdot could ask for. He's knowledgeable about IT and computers.
From the Wikipedia page:
A religious emblem of faith, or some other form of religiousity, is a requirement for the Bear and Webelos badges, and by extension the Arrow of Light.
So, they are religiously discriminating.
From the "Membership controversy page" on Wikipedia:
The Boy Scouts of America makes a division between its Scouting programs and the Learning for Life program. The Scouting programs are Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting, and Venturing. The policies that are considered controversial apply only to the Scouting programs.
Also in 2001, the BSA "revoked the charters of several Cub Scout packs in Oak Park, Illinois, because the sponsors, a parent-teacher group, adhered to a nondiscrimination policy."
In 1991, twin brothers William and Michael Randall, who had refused to recite the "duty to God" portion of the Cub Scout Promise and Boy Scout Oath, sued to be allowed to continue in the program (see Randall v. Orange County Council and Welsh v. Boy Scouts of America).[49] In addition, there were several other lawsuits involving essentially the same issues.[50] Ultimately, the courts ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts of America in each case.
Any cursory Google search will show that Cub Scouts has actively discriminated against atheists, and LGBT persons.
What if you want to use Free (or free) Software?
You're joking right? The Cub Scouts, as a division of the now jingoistic Boy Scouts of America, would never support such a COMMUNIST idea.
Cub Scouts != Boy Scouts
The Boy Scouts are the ones that hate atheists and gays. Not sure about the Cub Scouts but a quick perusal of the Wikipedia article suggests that they have no such offensive policies.
Straight from the Wikipedia page:
The Cub Scouts are a division of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA).
The court also got "implicit consent" wrong, and any "implicit consent" provisions should be outlawed. Requiring "implicit consent" to search for a common activity (like driving) is just as wrong as requiring "implicit consent" to search for an activity like signing a mortgage. Consent should always be explicit and individual. Anything else requires probable cause.
The courts didn't have anything to do with this consent.
It's explicitly spelled out in state statutes that if you want to drive you must grant the state consent to give you a breathalyzer. Failure to grant said consent means you do not get the privilege to drive.
At many checkpoints I've seen, Breathalyzers are performed. A biological test is absolutely a search, and indeed the Fourth Amendment specifically mentions the security of one's "person" as part of what should be free from search without probable cause.
In most states that I am aware of, you give implicit consent to breathalyzers by operating a vehicle on the road.
The problem is that state and local government do not have the authority or jurisdiction to enforce federal laws.
Citation needed. Is your claim really that if a local LEO observes someone breaking a Federal law he can't do anything about it other than call the FBI/US Marshals/etc? If I threaten to kill Barack Obama (Federal crime to threaten POTUS) in front of the local police station they can't arrest me? If I destroy a mailbox I can't be arrested by a non-Federal LEO? If I rob a bank the FBI or USSS are the only ones that can arrest me?
Threatening to kill ANYONE is also a state crime. Destroying another's property is also a state crime. Theft and robbery are also state crimes.
The local LEOs have laws which allow them to intercede, but the federal LEOs will take over because the penalties are typically higher.
Actually, the Constitution provides a list of things that the Federal Government CAN do, not a list of things the states cannot do. This law is perfectly constitutional
So, even though Article I, Section 8 only explicitly states what the Federal Congress can do, the individual States can borrow money on the credit of the United States? Establish Post Offices? define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas?
that points to the fact you r are just bone freakin idle and cant be bothered to get it sorted out
Not an unreasonable interpretation... however my point still stands, one datum does not make data.
As immigration laws are part of the naturalization process the States are most likely explicitly barred from enforcing immigration.
You seem to be confusing law enforcement with lawmaking.
Am I missing something? Did Arizona's legislature not pass a law?
Hey, if congress wants to pass a law permitting states to enforce immigration, that is their constitutional right.
However, a state legislature cannot pass a law permitting them to enforce immigration.
(Or so goes my argument, this is not "the truth", we need the courts to settle it for sure.)
Let's rephrase:
So long as home searches are not applied selectively they are not nominally infringing on someone's rights. Police are not allowed to search individual homes without cause, but they are allowed to search every home in the neighborhood with a reasonable public safety purpose.
The courts may have indeed agreed with you. They got it wrong. Individual and reasonable suspicion should always be required for such actions. Doing it to a lot of people makes it less acceptable, not more.
They're not allowed to SEARCH your car either at a checkpoint. They're simply allowed to ask you questions.
I believe that it would be legal for Police to canvas an neighborhood and ask all the houses some simple questions.
You're missing the point that checkpoints themselves are not illegal, but it's rather the actions taken that can make them illegal: such as searching every car, or even searching randomly selected cars.
As clarified in a different post, I intended to say that checkpoints do not "nominally" infringe anyone's rights.
There are naturally ways that officials can make them a violation of someone's rights.
Indeed; infringing everyone's rights is far better than infringing some people's rights.
No one's rights are being violated by holding checkpoints. You might disagree, but the courts agree with me.
So long as a checkpoint is not applied selectively they are not nominally infringing on someone's rights. Police are not allowed to stop individual cars without cause, but they are allowed to stop all cars with a reasonable public safety purpose.
Indeed; infringing everyone's rights is far better than infringing some people's rights.
No one's rights are being violated by holding checkpoints. You might disagree, but the courts agree with me.
So long as a checkpoint is not applied selectively they are not nominally infringing on someone's rights. Police are not allowed to stop individual cars without cause, but they are allowed to stop all cars with a reasonable public safety purpose.
I went through the TN-1, H1-B, GC process, and always had proof of status on my person. I still do.
And I was born in the United States, yet I do not have a proper birth certificate...
What's your point? That a single datum makes data?
Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have power... To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization"
(The rest of the items in this section are pretty clearly exclusive rights of the Federal government, such as "borrow money on the credit of the United States;")
As immigration laws are part of the naturalization process the States are most likely explicitly barred from enforcing immigration.
As for "liberal national socialist"... the National socialists were conservatives...
OK, let's go for the 14th amendment then. SB 1070 states that a police officer can go up to anyone and ask about their immigration status if they have "reasonable suspicion." Reasonable suspicion in this case could easily translate to "brown skin." No papers = possible jail. The 14th amendment was created to stop states from passing laws that override the clause in the constitution that "all men are created equal."
The law requires the officer to make lawful contact before having reasonable suspicion.
The bill doesn't require citizens to carry documents, it can't, that'd be illegal.
No, it doesn't require them to carry documents. It just says that having documents will keep you from being unnecessarily inconvenienced.
In reality, the Arizona bill is not much different than the federal law on illegal immigration (which obviously just isn't enforced).
There is the question as to if Arizona has the ability to enforce federal laws. As far as I'm aware, state LEOs cannot arrest you for a Federal crime, that's why they're attempting to make them able to arrest someone for this particular Federal crime. However, they didn't reproduce the federal laws, they simply require the state LEOs to enforce the Federal law directly. I don't believe this would meet constitutional muster.
And the illegal immigration law is being enforced. Arizona has drug laws, but I'm sure marijuana is just as rampant there as it is in any other state. Does that mean that they're not being enforced?
Rather, Arizona is upset that the federal government isn't enforcing their laws strongly enough.
Of course, if they're wrong they're going to be very unhappy to find that a driver's license isn't even close to documentation of citizenship.
The Arizona law specifically states that a drivers license creates a presumption that the individual is here legally.
I didn't see anyone bitching about the Feds having this right a month ago.
Probably because they have the constitutional authority to handle immigration, while Arizona state officials arguably do not.
And if we had a big problem with literally tens of millions of Germans sneaking into this country by illegally crossing its borders, then maybe I'd see your point.
I'm sure you're just using hyperbole, but you did say "literally"... Mexico only has a population of 100 million in the first place. Do you really think that nearly 20% of Mexico is illegally crossing the borders into the USA?
Also, somewhere around half of the illegal immigrants in the USA crossed the border legally... they've simply overstayed their permission.