Law Questions and Answers
I seemed to hold forgotten the party string here -- can someone justify abortion to me?
Answers: The simply two acceptable reason for abortion: rape, and a pregnancy that jeopardizes the mother's health.
It is womans right.
That is how the statute stands
If you want to find anti abortion ammo, don't look at me.
I feel, that anti abortion folks don't have a leg to stand on if they don't adopt adjectives the unwanted children. Especially the ones in our foster trouble system, etc.
Till then, their arguments don't denote a damned thing to me, till they put their values where on earth their heart is.
=========
I fail to deduce the thumbs down, when it is apparent, what I am axiom, is the anti abortion crowd is full of contradictions.
In as much as many will combat for the fetus, but will murder the adult, as surrounded by war and wealth punishment.
========
Pam Sheer,
What you have tried to do feebly, it compared this to issues that have no bare on what I said.
I will make this as plain as year, "EITHER PUT UP OR SHUT UP." Adopt all the unwanted kids, the ones that not a soul wants to nick responsibility for except the state, and only consequently, will I pay attention. I preserve hearing roughly speaking personal responsibility, then you craft it personally responsible to adopt those kids.
If you want to argue personal responsibility starts beside everyone, here is two things to ponder. Birth control fails and not everyone is similar to you. If you want everyone to be like you, later I suggest you form your own totalitarian state.
If anyone wants to ask me if I hold done my part, Yes I hold. My adopted son, who is in a minute 22, was born next to fetal alcohol syndrome.
Now, all you anti abortion associates, get to work, at hand are a lot of kids that entail love. If you haven't done your part, after its time to give some love to those that don't hold it.
===========
Peace
Jim
.
The question of abortion comes down to the quiz of is the fetus a person or not.
If it's a human being then abortions are never sound, You can't kill a entity because his father was a rapist.
If it's not a creature then abortion is fit for any reason.
I read out we can't know if it's a person or not and it's not the government's duty to decide. And until someone can prove it's a personage, each party must decide that for themself.
The proof is this:
1. Until a baby is born, it is not a newborn, not a person, and have no rights, not even to life.
2. Until a babe is born, it is part of a woman's body. The elected representatives has no right to speak about a woman what they can and can not do with their body.
Not axiom I agree with it, but to be precise the justification to be exact used.
There is no justification, so I can't give a hand you.
just plain jim, that's newly plain nonsense. The canon CURRENTLY allows warrantless wiretaps, condemnation of private property for private "better" uses, and the death cost. As has be said before, the decree FORMERLY allowed for slavery, and DENIED WOMEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE.
So if the law is our solely measure, the subsequent question is, the decree WHEN?
That's different than justification, which asks for the inherent, object, absolute-truth basis for abortion.
Which, per your answer, in that is none. Except that the law allows it.
If the canon allowed the cops to cuff and search citizens on the street, would that be permissible in your mind?
Abortion involves relations who cannot even agree on terms.
The fetus isn't a child nonetheless, but abortion-haters keep chitchat about butchery children as though the fetus was something it is not.
Having said that, anti-abortionists hold looking for absolute proof of something that philosophically, medically, and religiously is awfully difficult to prove. When does life start?
If you are Jewish, the fetus become a separate person when the umbilicus is cut. If you are any one of several Protestant denominations, the fetus's first breath is the start of energy. This comes from something in the Old Testament, I forget exactly where on earth. Other religions talk around "quickening" - the first movement of the fetus inside the mother. There are those who talk in the region of conception, but even the Catholic Church doesn't QUITE take it that far. Has to do near whether the "soul" has be embodied yet, because if it have (i.e. life begin at conception) then EVERY stillbirth, every spontaneous abortion, every behind time period is potentially a soul for which concluding rites must be performed.
Every one of those religions say it is right - but that can't be true. So we must conclude that religious belife cannot be the answer - because it is not uniform. This leaves regulation to define when a creature gains rights beneath our constitution. And that law say very little - but what it DOES voice implies "at birth, not since." So... abortion doesn't kill a child, it terminate a fetus. But you have freedom of religion, so if YOUR religion say that abortion kills a child, it is a concern of your religious belief, not of anything scientific.
And that channel that the justification includes freedom of religion for those individuals whose denomination uses a very belated moment as the start of life.
Double jeapardy: An extention of first question for clarification.?
I posted a sound out a while ago about double jeapardy which brought up unknown questionable aspects. I read up on it online and found this on wikipedia to be interesting."Double jeopardy is also not implicated for separate offenses or in separate jurisdiction arising from the same perform."
The first question involved a luggage on a tv program called snapped contained by which a mother kills her daughters ex bf and is release on a technicality and afterwards prosecuted by federal for the same crime.
I hear from associates from the first question that they can do that if its not done by duplicate enity as the first judgement. but that still doesnt make sense. The constitutional decree would supercede federal and state and would have to come surrounded by effect. She was tried for like crime in the unitied states which adhere by the constitution even if by different entities of that same government which make no sense. If the crimes were different close to batter and racial crimes but it be the same exact crime.
Answers: The push button to understanding this is that "alike act" (as per your quote above) and "the same crime" are not duplicate thing.
Example 1: Timothy McVeigh blows up the Murrah Building surrounded by Oklahoma City. He was tried and convicted by the Federal Government for massacre 19 federal employees within and could also have be tried by the state of Oklahoma for all the other murders.
Example 2: In the Rodney King spanking trials, the 4 police officers be acquitted by the State of California for assaulting Rodney King, but be convicted by a Federal court for violating Rodney King's civil rights.
Thus, one exploit or offense committed can result in multiple crimes self charged, and those multiple charges can result in different trials (and different verdicts) lacking violating double jeopardy.
There are two concurrent Jurisdictions within the United States.
Federal and State laws both apply contained by all states.
(FYI- "Venue" is the concept of geographical context, St. Louis and Kansas City are two different venue.
"Jurisdiction" is the ability of a court to try or hear a dependable crime. State Courts and Federal Courts are separate jurisdiction.)
If the petitioners, the cause of management and the crime is the same, its double jeopardy.
Who thinks marijiuana should be legalized?
Alcohol is allowed, and you can kill yourself or others by drinking, but marijiuana isn't, and you can single get so stoned, and the worse entry that could happen is you will put away yourself out of house and home and then go down asleep. Not only could we receive ourselves out of the national debt by packaging it and selling it approaching cigarettes to be used in a controlled enviroment, but it would indubitably put the drug cartale out of business.Your thoughts on this.
Answers: Marijuana has individual been unendorsed in the United States since the untimely 1900s, and the reasons are not great. Most reason are due to racism... marijuana was blamed for blacks "disrespecting the whites authority", and the for Mexicans man crazy or "loco"
Most of the outlaw of marijuana was cause by racism since most pot smokers were Latino and African American ;and law have freshly not changed since then. Mostly because it is engraved culturally and ethical on our society, politically we cannot grasp the vote.
abraham lincoln wouldnt support it
A prohibition law strikes a blow at the drastically principles upon which our government be founded.
Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of drive in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and make a crime out of things that are not crimes.
I live in Oregon and am a reserve sheriff officer. I voted for the legalization of medical marijuana here. Regrettably! Thhe result is the average licensed medical marijuana grower is making powerfully over $250,000 yearly growing "extra" marijuana for non medical customers. And the average is making $2 million.
If legalized, I would stir for grow all you want smoke at home. Get caught even selling a single amalgamated gets 5 years contained by prison and serves every day.
As it go everyone buying marijuana is supporting harder drug dealers, drug cartel, as well as Middle Eastern terrorists.
Intoxication of adjectives kind are the genuine enemy of human nice.
Human life is the grace of GOD due to his power of know-how and intelligence.
Any substance which affect the healthy existence of human giving is to be destroyed from the face of dirt.
Its medicinal usage ,if ,any ,shall be allowed.
How much trouble would a minor get within for getting 20-25 people elevated off weed brownies...?
against their skill or consent?again i would like to restate: i am looking for possible consequences
Answers: Well you'd probably attain 20 counts of distributing marijuana, not very flawless at all lots of top-security prison time.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
hahah you would get tried, but as a minor you couldn't obtain jail time. but your narrative would have a put pen to paper on it for sure. also, if you get contained by trouble with the regulation later on, that'll show up and it'll distinctly influence peoples' future decision in trying you. also if your underneath 18 they tel your parents.
you WOULD get charged next to posession though. my friend got charged w/ posession, and he have to go to court, and he's a minor.
i close to mine in chocolate chip cookies
3 years within Michigan for first offense as a minor.
possession , poisoning
hey
DO NOT EVEN TRY that sh1t!
it is SO bad for you!!
my friends undamaged familys life be ruined cuz of her gay sis being a fu**in tweaker!
if u dont believe me, read "Go Ask Alice" its a definite diary of a pothead. so sad :(
and idk...
but once again dont try that sh1t
NONE:by me(did like peas in a pod thing when i be little!)Spiked everything@parents big company party(@our place,in PNG)best laugh&biggest restricted ever kept.
I know i should't condone it,so.. well..godd on ya!I see the funny side.
PS:don't do it again.Lesson knowledgeable?..end of story.
GEEZE GUYS,GIVE THE KID A BREAK,you adjectives so F--KING PURE???
KID you gotta do alot more serious **** to go away..be there.
Person above me(whete u@)YEP,he,he
all right if you are planning on doing this please know that you could actually eliminate someone. There are certain medication that might interact with this drug and basis a deadly allergic reaction and you could get some YEARS contained by prision. If you are feeding this to relatives at work, you WILL get fired.
Some states (not sure where on earth you live) product tampering is a class B felony near a sentence range from 2 to 5 years.
I dont have a sneaking suspicion that that the 10 minutes of fun you will have from watching general public ingest this is worth the trouble
Attorney's fees alone will cost you a few grand
I would suggest you skip this opinion
At the very lowest possible you will have 20-25 race anixous to get revenge on you and they might not do it within the same passageway, they might put LSD or urine in your sea
not a road you should consider going down
Hello,
If you are over 14 you can be treated like a mature in some states. By this time you should know better. Charged near a lot of things! Juvenile detention is contained by your future.
Under 14 to 12 it is iffy surrounded by some states how they want to charge you. Juvenile detention might be in your adjectives.
Under 11, you are a kid and might have to jump to juvenile detention for a very short time.
Whomever you get the marijuana from is the one you may have to be afraid of. You may hold to spill the beans on where you get it.
You may have to be in motion to drug counseling in adjectives instances. If someone has a fruitless reaction to the marijuana you can be charged near whatever happen as a result. Who knows if the street marijuana have anything lased in it.
Anyways I perceive it would be a waste of your time. Regardless of the consequesnces.
It certainly depends on how old the minor contained by question is, what state you are surrounded by and several other factors.
In some states, they can treat you approaching an adult as soon as age 15! That is infrequent and they usually only treat minors approaching adults for extreme things, like rape, murder and kid napping. If some one died as a result of taking the Brownies, that would be homicide.
In a defence like that, they could progress after the kids parents and sue them if they wanted. But they could also prefer to prosecute the kid. The judge may termination up saying surrounded by the end, "You are 15 years aged and committed this crime, I sentence you to 25 years to life!"
The minor would after be sent to a juvenile detention centre until s/he turned 18. At that point, the courts would evaluate the situation. They would read aloud: Did this punishment fit the crime? Is s/he reformed adequate to go posterior to society or do we need to distribute them to prison to finish their sentence? Or do we need to sent them to a psyche ward?
They would really evaluate respectively individual case separately.
If they fixed to release the person when they are 18, they would, by directive, be required to seal the juvenile documentation for the rest of their life. Only within extreme circumstances would they be able to clear them files and check their juvie record. Such as if they entail a security clearance to work surrounded by the White House.
Does HR1955 Nullify the constitution?
"the homegrown terrorism prevention act of 2007"Answers: No. It make it easier to prevent Americans that could possibly pose a threat to homeland security and will build it easier to prosecute them. Not only terrorists, but can`t bear groups. Is there place contained by present day America for extremist groups resembling the KKK, Aryan Nation, or the New Black Panther Party?
Its not a McCarthyism terrorist witch hunt, it's not attacking freedom of speech, its to protect Americans. Tell ya what, get on a place and roar that you have a bomb, consequently try to claim freedom of speech. It's the same entity, harboring terrorist anti-American thoughts are just as hazardous to the general public as yell "bomb" on a plane.
To the first answerer, what's a 9/11 "truth conspiracy movement?" Didn't you know Bin Laden claimed responsibility for 9/11, there be no conspiracy.
yes, it really bothers me too, being one of the potential dissidents
labeling an american that disagrees beside the administration a terrorist
they are researching to censor muslim propaganda
which is an mirage, there is no propaganda from the muslim world that could ever effect us,
the not here is more dangerous to their status than what any muslim extremist could do
so they are more imagined to censor us and the 9/11 truth conspiracy movement
No doubt that it is problematic. It does have a carveout at the ruin of the bill stating that nothing shall violate anyone's constitutional rights, yadda yadda yadda. But the proof's within the pudding -- here's the definition of 'violent radicalization':
The term `violent radicalization' channel the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitate ideologically based bombing to advance political, religious, or social devolution.
I have to ask myself, if sternness is the targeted, illegal movement, aren't we already covered by existing laws? What does this imperative add? Then I amount this -- it adds the factor of mens rea, the intent behind the accomplishment. So the only article this law does is supply an enforcement feature to existing law so as to prevent actions base on a certain type of thought.
I'm specifically not in favor of antagonism. But I'm more afraid of a government that polices our thoughts, than I am of the thoughts that drive the potential terror campaign.
How much is milage compensation for Companies in California?
How do I turn about finding the answer to this? Is in that a set rate, or does it depend on who you work for, or whare you live?Answers: It depends on who you work for, but the standard was 48.5 cents per mile for business miles driven, and immediately the standard mileage rate is 50.5 cents.
*/End
Employers can choose what rate will be paid. There is no state ruling setting a rate.
Is it true that the feds can only listen to a conversation for a few second before they own to cut it off?
Answers: no.
No, if this be true, wiretaps would be useless bits and pieces.
What does" application to accelorate" mean?
I am keeping up to date on those case by looking on the Oklahoma Supreme Court website. The person's armour that I am interested in say that he is to remain in custody on "application to accelorate" What does this be set to?Answers: simply stated "He will remain incarcerated while he applies to speed up his trial"
Is it illegal to aspiration death contained by a letter?
I know that it is not iffy to simply wish destruction on someone in standard, as long as it is not a threat. For example "I hope you die in a saloon crash" is okay but "I'm going to kill you" is not. I'm moving soon and I want to write a message telling my boyfriend and his entire kith and kin how I hope all of them die. Would it be construed as bullying to do this in a memorandum if I just set out it on the kitchen counter and not sent it through the mail?Answers: probably not wicked,but definitely not fully formed.
You should take the sophisticated road and not go this route. This behavior will simply fuel their dislike of you. They'll chuckle and say, she's a low time, look at how she acts. You are so better bad without her.
Don't dance to that level! Just verbs and never look back. I give my ex 1 chance to apologize and endow with me his side of the story. He chose not to and I never saw or spoke to him again. To this day, I grain smug knowing that he never got it rotten of his chest, and he never will. So, I win. I took the high road and he can suffer for his whereabouts. (and he has have a major round of fruitless karma!)
If you feel you want to do something, do it vocally, not in writing. You don't ever want to put something within writing that could be used against you. It would show that you have desperate character, enjoy an anger streak, etc. (even though you don't) it could be twisted, and you don't need any secondary drama down the road.
Put something in the notification that will keep them guessing. Like, what did she show by that? For instance, I hope you think long and intricate about the road you chose to treat me. Twist it and make them discern guilty, but don't put anything threatening, what so ever.
Good luck! It sounds like your enthusiasm will be much better without them. That should be plenty to make you smile. Karma will be watching over them and you.
While it's not unauthorized per se, it could be used by them to bring a civil harassment lawsuit against you. It doesn't engineer a difference how they receive it (left in their home or through the mail), any way a conciliator or jury could construe it as a threat.
Depression Era money found in wall surrounded by Cleveland - should contractor have rightful claim to it?
A contractor contained by Cleveland found $182,000 of Depression Era money inside a bathroom wall in Cleveland as he be remodeling the bathroom for a high academy friend. Now the contractor is trying to claim the money as his. Do you think it is ethical for him to try claiming the money as his? According to the story, Ohio have a "finders keepers" law that applies if it appears any owner will reappear to reclaim it. Peter Dunne own the house during the Depression Era and one of the boxes have P Dunne on it. I would think that ruling applies to Peter Dunne and his family and not to Reece the current owner of the house. To me, I would dream up the money would become the property of the owner of the house after the original owner (Peter Dunne) have not come back to claim it after a indubitable number of years. I could see the contractor maybe getting a small percentage (say 10%) for finding it. But to me that's approaching stealing out of a person's house. What is your view and why?Answers: Not at adjectives, when an owner buys the house, he buys everything in it, around it, below it, over it. Lost is lost. There is no clause in his contract that say other wise. When the house be sold, it was sold as a intact, and all next to in it.
The modern owner is the rightful owner of the money, and anything else to be found in or around the house.
I agree beside you on this. What a sleezy contractor.
It is stealing if the contractor tried to take it. I would fire the contractor.
I mull over the fairest thing would be clear a finder's fee to contractor, perchance 20% and then split remainder between former and current owner. Nobody would return with all of it; everybody will return with something.
Seeing as how this is a fair solution it would probably be rejected surrounded by favor of a lawsuit. Then only the lawyer would get any money!!! Shakespeare be right, "Lets kill the lawyers"!
bowdlerize: Is it just me or does it give the impression of being insane that they would hide money when the depression be going on and there be so much need? This make me wonder if the money was originally gotten by dishonest methods...Gee, how insane is it to cover a literal fortune in a time of desperate poverty?
NO!!!
This money should be given to the rightfull heir of the original homeowner who PUT that money in that!!!
If it's not. I'm pretty sure that contractor will meet next to a bad appendage somehow due to bad luck because the money still have that mans drive on it.
I say that because apparently the man be greedy and he hoarded his cash instead of using it as it be intended to be used and is probably still 'hoarding' it today!!!
You have to ask two question:
#1, whose house is it?
#2, who asked the contractor to knock down wall?
The answer is duplicate.
That would be the owner of the house.
The contractor should not be entitled to even 1% of the find.
That house is not a public place.
I agree with you 100%
More Questions and Answers:
[1379] - [94] - [2394] - [1922] - [109] - [16] - [1731] - [1488] - [802] - [567] - [1162] - [1739] - [1432] - [1909] - [296] - [503] - [2347] - [1844] - [2201] - [1932]
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question: