Law Questions and Answers

Are there any resolutions and/or conventions that set a standard on what is court and what is illicit trading?

Answers: That would be a great question to ask of Martha Stewart. ;-)

Do you think adjectives of our laws should be base on whats written in the bible?

I usually steer clear of asking or answering religious or political question but this has be on my mind so here goes:

Why do some citizens rationalize everything with "because Jesus said so surrounded by the bible"? I know a girl in one of my classes yesterday and the topic be gay marriage. She said gay wedding ceremony is wrong and shouldn't be allowed because the bible says its wrong and Jesus doesn't close to gay marriage. Same go for abortion (but she's FOR capital punishment).

Do some citizens not realize that not EVERYONE is a Christian. Not EVERYONE believes in the bible so why should EVERYONE enjoy to live their life by it.? Isn't within a separation of church and state? So why does she believe that laws should be base on the bible?

Like I said, I usually stay away from political and religious questions but I simply had to ask his one.
Answers: The bible should own nothing to do near our laws.

The US be founded as a secular society with freedom of religion. The sector of the constitution that deals beside religion is the FIRST amendment, and that shows the priority the founders gave to the free exercise of religion and the avoidance of church and state entanglement.

Religious conservatives own a different view of the first amendment; a attitude which is completely contrary to the intentions of the founders of the US. They will say that the first amendment prevents the policy from running a church or from designating an "official" church. They use this argument to justify the handout of federal import tax dollars to various "hope based" charities. They would like to skirt adjectives the laws that voice the government cannot financially support churches.

Next, right wingers read aloud the constitution does not contain the words "separation of church and state", so this principle does not exist. They ignore the certainty that this is the way the first amendment have been interpreted by the courts and our legislaures for more than 200 years.

Finally, they read out that all of our law were founded on Judeo Christian principles. This sounds more sophisticated and valid than saying that US law are founded on the Bible, but that is exactly what they show.( At the same time, they criticize Muslim nation for having sharia or Koran base laws.)

US law are NOT based on the bible, the 10 commandments or Judeo Christian principles. Our law derive from the English common statute, which itself was base on Roman law, Norman French tenet, and the traditions of the Anglo-Saxon tribes. Consider for a moment all the parts of the bible where on earth God tells the Israelites to slaughter adjectives the men, and rape all the women who worship false god, and where Jesus simply tell people they should meet the terms Caesar. And just what category of law did Caesar follow?

Of course, if we deceptively say that US decree is based on the Bible later we can also ban gay marriage ceremony, and perhaps even exclude gays from civil rights protections beneath the law. The belief that our law derive from the bible is really an attempt to get a blank check to move a lot of law including the laws against torture and cruel and inhuman punishment. I suppose you've also hear people read aloud "an eye for an eye"! as if this is what our laws mandate.

To sum it up, the rhetoric just about laws have to conform to biblical principles is part of a movement to variety the US into a "Christian" nation. It's really all around forcing one religion on everyone else, and since that is against the principles our nation be founded on, it is clearly and simply un-American.

Your friend probably has these beliefs because she have been raise to believe in abundantly of things rather than to put somebody through the mill first and reach her own conclusions
No, no opening.

The bible allows; surrogacy, revenge killing, genocide, stoning, trophy taking of bodily parts, ... I'm sure there's others
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I resembling adultery and pillage and you want to take them away from me?!
Absolutely not. That be too many years ago and too various things have changed since those days.
No, because it's not what God designed contained by his wonderfull plan, but if it was, it would be so much peace, love, reading and harmony between everone!
Not per se, because even though I'm Christian I still believe that this religion is not one to be forced upon general public. Christ didn't force it upon his people its a choice. Choice to follow Christ or Choice to follow someone or something else.

Times hold changed and people enjoy come to gain new knowhow and understanding.

Some Christian run Christianity to another level and they become radical. They themselves interpret the word and expect everyone else to interpret the same message when the word is intended to be interpreted individually for each's individual go. What's good for the goose is not other good for the gander.
Our Laws do come from the Bible as given to Moses by God
Both Jews and Christians believe this and the Bible is also for means punishment its Not a rationalization to accept what the bible teach but Jews and Christians believe that God intended us to have time and live it to its full potential. We fail when we rationalize our behaviors and behaviour. God intended us to love one another and be mercy full to each other. Not to go-between each others act. He is our Judge.
What you are askng is a question even the founding father of our country asked. As you may know not all of the founders of our nation be christian either.

Thomas Jefferson set to answer this grill in his own mind when he begin his own 'translation' of the New Testament. Basically what he did was copy the teachings of Jesus, but would cut out anthing having to do beside His divinity or any miricles He worked. He did this just to know how to study the actual teachings of Jesus on how to behave. His conclusion? He wrote that the teachings of Jesus contain the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fall from the lips of man."
So,if you hold some amount of respect for one of the men responsible for the design of this country, you may find it interesting to record, that though he himself was not a Christian, his philosophy of morality and public behavior were almost without a doubt based on the teachings of Christ.
No. There are some law that are biblically based that only make sense (Do not steal). There are also some moral principles found contained by the Bible that anyone with any amount of suitability should be able to see as a well brought-up basis for canon. There are some precepts in the Bible that Christians newly need to follow that modern society just won't adopt, at least some portions of society anyway (gay wedding / homosexuality). The trick that seems to be within finding compromise, or even the willingness to compromise. I can see the Christian's raise their Bibles overhead and crying "No Compromise". What I am saying is that the Christian portion of our society does not stipulation to give up their beliefs, but basically understand that this is a secular nation, and Legislating beliefs does not work. If believers can't win those who do not believe by the example of their lives and works within that society, legislation will never do the job for them. Conversely, at hand are those (not all) who seem to have an idea that that it is OK to target Christians and all that they hold dear, and it's fine to do so. You can't bring in a slur against anyone but a Christian in todays society, but they are just game. Anyone who subscribes to that file of thinking about any single group is a fool of the first lay down, and a bigot to boot. That is just as hypocritical as any Sunday morning Bible thumper I've ever certain. Non believers DO NOT have any more right to force their beliefs (or non belief) on everyone else than Christians hold the right to force the Bible down others throats. There is room in this nation for both.
The unbroken Church and State thing is such a stretch from what the Constitution say it's really embarrassing that nearby are those "enlightened" members of society liable to make the arguements that they be paid.
Actually, our laws are base on the Code of Hammurabi which predates the Bible by some 1700 years.
no,the bible is based on matured strategies,what they know of it anyway,it is history,therefore it should stay here.
No, not all of our law should be based upon the Bible but much of our law are based upon the Bible and Jewish-Christian tradition. The framework for our law is laid out in the Constitution which includes a bill of rights preventing the U.S. senate from establishing a national religion. That same bill of rights allows everyone to worship, or not worship, as they please. The rights were assumed to come from God, ergo natural rights. The words "separation of church and state" are not contained by the Constitution but were within a letter that Jefferson wrote.

I am sorry that you are dealing next to a Christian that can't give you a sense for her faith. Europe's and America's opinion of liberty arose from the Bible. Christ did voice love your brother as yourself and that all men are equal. He also said nurture the hungry, clothe the naked and look in those in prison. I believe that the equal protection clause found contained by the 14th amendment is Biblically based. Christ also said that he come to free the captives.

I do believe the Bible lead to our success and help to create the West's great technological achievement arising from the West by increasing the talent pool given opportunity to create. I am not Jewish but love the Jewish idea of Tikkun Olam-repair the world.

Europe appears to be post Christian immediately and I wonder how those changes will play out. As a Christian, I acknowledge your right to work for law that are consistent with your pro system and ask you to respect the right of Christians to work for laws consistent beside our value system.

I be amazed after finishing law arts school & studying the Torah how much of our Uniform Commercial Code mirrors ancient Jewish law. I am horrified when reading some of the passage in the antediluvian testament but believe scripture to be inspired by God but not the actual word of God. You have to remember that much of the Old Testament be written in bronze age!
The law of the old testament be designed to help a bunch of society get through the stone age
Levitcus make it a crime to wear wool and cloth (cotton) at the same time. But I am describing tales and the book of levitucus forbids that too. People should be put to departure for Adultery; the bible says so: Leviticus again
not within any way we, the world, could be deeper contained by the mire even more than we are now, and explicitly bad plenty
Yes
No ... Just the Ten Commandments, which is the Universal basis of ALL Law contained by the entire World.

Law History 101
The question beg the answer. The bible exists in copious forms.
People should exist by decency

Does Anyone remember what it was Like to live lower than a federal Labour Government???

Intrest rates were 21%...Unemployment be at all time higns...Unions run the country...And our national debt was the laughing stock of the free world...The resession we have to have...Unemployments benifits be abused, Our living standards were far from what they are today...You werent rewarded for working harder...Income taxes be higher...Our nation exportors were ham strung by union...Dont send our country rear 20 years...Remember the past if you cant look it up...
Answers: yeah pensioners on tv bitching in the region of eating chum dog food thats labour for you
Yup - it's so much better presently. No exports at all, foreign owned factory - reloacted labour within india and mexico. locked down borders, fear and loathing of muslims, no robustness car, HUGE petro dollor debts and intractable war.

Go america.
Yes I certainly do I also remember living underneath Malcolm Fraser and I also remember Paul Keatings economic policies that set Australia doing a tour to recovery.

I also remember the second 12 years introduction of GST ,privatization of our major companies,deregulation of the Aussie show and TV industries , the booming mineral and gas in the north of my state WA, the river debacle, the clean IR laws but most of adjectives I remember we use to be a country of fair budge now we are a country that blindly follows USA surrounded by everything even an illegal time of war.

Its easy to rub the unemployment information you just spawn all the kids stay at college till year 12 then you place them contained by tafe.
We have immediately become a nation of educated idiots who necessitate to import skilled employees because we don't have any apprentices to compress these places.

Yes I remember even though interest rates were elevated we still could afford to buy house on one wage so I could raise my children and I could also afford to put petrol surrounded by my car.
*sigh*

You are another wounded case of somebody who have had the Liberal Party crap forced so firm down your throat that you believe it.

The entire argument here surrounds two questions: did Australia really "need" to own that recession, and do governments really enjoy much control over the economy?

The answers are pretty much yes and "sort-of" respectively.

The recession lower than Keating was due to two reason: a turbulent international market at the time that resulted within many nation going through a difficult economic time of year, and because he floated the dollar. The second point is especially important - the gold ingots standard had be failing since WWI due to depleted government gold ingots reserves and a general incompatibility next to emerging modern economic models. Up until Keating, the stress of floating the dollar to making Australia friendly to international investors and markets be always in that, but no politician was brave adequate to do it, because our existing currency had be set so artificially high that a massive short-term impact on the discount was inevitable, which would almost without a doubt get them booted out. This proved to be true, but floating the dollar be like "bitter medicine", so to speak. Much of our monetary prosperity now is thankfulness to Keating, because much of the investment from foreign markets that contributes massively to our discount is only because we enjoy finally floated our dollar, exposing it to real international flea market values.

Unfortunately, with most race having unquestionably no understanding of economics, Howard spinal column in 1996 be able to sledge hammer the massage that Keating be a bad financial manager, and thus win the see. The attack on debt was conspicuously appaling, and only shows that any he was lying through the teeth contained by his claims that it was unpromising, or he really knows zilch about macro-economics any. (look all this up surrounded by a standard economics text-book if you don't believe me, by the way) Economics on a governmental scale more closely resemble a corporate model, but the pollies own really convinced many that a country should be run approaching a household (economically). The claim that debt=bad is completely wrong: on the contrary, on a national amount, debt (while not in itself good) surrounded by recession is necessary if gigantic reserves aren't available, because money requests to be constantly pumped into the public sector to get the discount moving again. In fact, surrounded by a corporation, there is a standard policy to maintain a plane of something like 5% debt - debt is view as a sign that investment is being made, which is a pious thing, when you exit household economics. Thus, our debt was far from "the laughing stock of the world", it be pretty tame if truth be told compared to many others, such as Japan (even currently they enjoy huge debt, but they have one of the strongest economy in the world). However, excessive debt, and of the wrong category, is bad, and underneath Howard our net foreign debt have reached around $500 billion, which would surely kill Australia if an international recession be to hit us again like the Great Depression (and it will; instinctive economic cycle).

However, mainly, a capitalist government can't do that much to amend the economy. At this stage, adjectives of the major critical reforms (removing tariff under Hawke, floating the dollar lower than Keating) have be made, so beyond this it's really left to virtually out of control international conditions. But, poor economic policy can still hurt us, but this can solitary result from putting in place this poor policy intentionally (only the biggest of imbeciles could possible do such a article unintentionally while thinking they're doing upright - macro-politics really is that simple on the whole)... such as the huge tax (edit: CUTS, not rebate (doh!)), which are about pleasing the voters in the short-term, not fitting policy. Maintaining good international relationships for trade is impressive, and again they're not too likely to be mysteriously sought out to be destabilized by a new Labor administration. Unions have never be that bad, any, and they in certainty really do a lot of devout. Look into their role in helping asbestos victims currently. The panorama that unions and Labor break small business is just silly - that would hurt the cutback overall, and just inevitably obtain them kicked out of power - no government is so stupid as to do that, even if they be the "lapdogs" of the unions (again, which they are not, it is a spectacle that is shoved down the electorate's throat by the Coalition).

Now don't attain me wrong - I'm not a Labor supporter myself either (and I truly find them in various respects nearly as bad as the liberals, but as a progressive myself I simply can't stand that genus of conservatism), in certainty I support minor parties. My intentions here own been to try and show you that at hand is much more to Australia's political and socio-economic history, and economics, than the dogma paraded by both the highest parties.

Please, do yourself a like better. Enlighten yourself - go out and read (not excessively biased, such as not affiliated beside political parties) about Australia's socio-economic history and macro-economics, become more politically aware instead of a short time ago repeating what you hear others spew-forth (usually also just mimicking someone else). It doesn't purloin much, and you will feel content within knowing the truth behind most of the lies the primary parties weave. Political unawareness is the greatest blight upon Australian (indeed, most nations') political scene.

Sorry going on for the wall of text by the means of access, but I feel really strongly something like politics and political unawareness, so I was compelled to rant :D.

Edit: BTW the low severance figure is childishly misleading. Look this up: in Australia "employment" is in a minute defined as work for a minimum of only 1 hour per week, and it extends to including non-for-profit voluntary work.

P.S. Why thank you miss schlonky, it's nice to see my time-consuming rant go renowned :D
I just turned 50 ultimate month so I can remember back to when Whitlam be elected. " Gough is God" people used to say aloud. Three years later he get tossed out by those same people
( don't bound up and down - he was kicked out by Kerr but lost a democratic see after that). Although I was too infantile to vote, I certainly remember 16 and 17 percent interest rates. Deja vu during the Hawke and Keating years. Will Rudd and his squad take us down impossible to tell apart path? Will the union get control again? I don't know and neither does anyone else but I hope not.
What I can remember is that labor union built this country, although I am not a big fan of them. I don't agree next to all of the money they transport out of peoples' paychecks, and it's basically for zilch. They can't guarantee jobs.
Our reduction IS the laughing stock right now and problably at its lowest it have ever been.
Jobs aren't as plentiful as the Labor Dept. and this Administration would approaching you to believe. Service jobs should not count as making a living, because they are so poorly salaried.
Gas prices are at the highest they hold ever been, frequent of our Constitutional rights have be terminated using 9/11 as an excuse.
We get anxious at airports, can't fly with sure everyday items, told to take our shoes stale, and delayed sometimes for more than two hours.
Also, we ARE in a recession, but not a soul wants to concede it.
And we are the brokest country, quickly attainment a third world title. China will eke out the U.S. next year as the richest country contained by the world.
And yes, people be rewarded for working harder. With today's wages, people are slaves.
I believe existence was better then-unions or not.
Alex G's answer said it ALL!
Alex, you're my YA hero :)

Should capital punishment be brought put money on in england?

should it be brought posterior, with restrained of the murders occuring today, of children, policemen/women should terrorists receive this punishment
Answers: Why not first take a look at the USA experience next to the death cost.

124 people on annihilation rows have be released with proof that they be wrongfully convicted. DNA is available in smaller quantity than 10% of all homicides and isn’t a guarantee we won’t execute innocent nation.

The death cost doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reputable study shows the death cost to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death cost is neither. Homicide rates are higher surrounded by states and regions that have it than surrounded by states that don’t.

We have a polite alternative. Life without parole is in a minute on the books surrounded by 48 states. It means what it say. It is sure and swift and rarely appealed. Life lacking parole is less expensive than the disappearance penalty.

The passing penalty costs much more than enthusiasm in prison, mostly because of the legally recognized process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.

The departure penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants next to the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to associates with money. When is the ultimate time a wealthy being was on loss row, let alone executed?

The departure penalty doesn't necessarily lend a hand families of murder victims. Murder object family member across the country argue that the drawn-out death cost process is painful for them and that existence without parole is an appropriate alternative.

Problems next to speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent people released from release row had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent personage.
Yes!

But only for Manchester United Supporters.
No. Because until the courts can definitely guarantee there will be no miscarriages of sprite at least some populace executed would be innocent. I give you, as a nice simple example, the Birmingham Six. Accused and convicted of terrorist bombings that certainly were nought to do with them, they would enjoy been executed long up to that time their innocence was proven.
And because it make no difference to crime rates. If it did, there would be no murders contained by those states of the US that still have the extermination penalty. But race still get murdered, and Death Row is still all right populated.
yes but we would have to rethink the method. flaccid on a long drop is instant. the death should concluding at least soon.
No because there is no guarantee that a short time ago because a jury finds a person guilty consequently he is. There have be too many miscarriages of sprite for it to be safe.
Yes.
For Prime ministers who slouch to Parliament.

A campaign to enjoy alcohol banned to protect their inherited members be launched and won by the youth of which n

northern community?
Answers: Kugluktuk
Kugluktuk

If a child was born today?

If a child be born today and all of man electronics devices ceased to work, and the with the sole purpose remedy was to murder this one child. What do you think would be man choice?
Answers: Kill the child...if all electronic devices cease to work then adjectives medical devices in the hospitals would be useless, thereby cause thousands of other people to die.
remedy for what?

Laywers - PLEASE! Summary Judgement. What do I file to enjoy the judge hear my side of the story?

I am a disabled paralegal. I can do this. All my canon books and notes be lost to a fire. PLEASE! Help me with in recent times a little direction.
If you want to contact me furter about this please travel to my 360 page!
THANK YOU!!!!!
Answers: As a paralegal, you should know that no attorney on here can assist you without knowing the details of your luggage, and further, I would think you would hold learned the fundamentals of civil procedure. To refresh your memory:

A motion for summary ruling is a motion based on the perception that there are no facts contained by dispute and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a thing of law. Example: Both sides to a dispute accept that party A broke a contract next to Party B, and that the contract calls for liquidate damages in the sum of $10,000. If adjectives parties confess to this, then Party A can move for summary acumen, as there is no accurate dispute for the court to resolve, its only a business of law.

To properly respond to the issue, you inevitability to file a motion contained by opposition to the summary perspicacity, and if there are indeed facts within dispute, state what those facts are. You also need to, if at hand is any dispute over the state of the law, next you need to discuss those within a brief or memorandum in antagonism.

I strongly suggest that you obtain an attorney to assist you near this. Depending on the extent of your paralegal training, this may be beyond you and something that you aren't ready to face up to alone. For a referral, contact your state or local bar association.
Are you dictum that summary judgement has already be entered against you?

If so, after unless you can find a mistake of law or judicial error you don't bring back two bites of that apple. There are no appealable issues.
You must timely file a Response to Motion for Summary Judgment and request a audible range. Contact an attorney ASAP before the MSJ is granted.

Can a minor disaffirm a contract for non-necessaries in MN?

Answers: I checked MN covering law on this on my trial search engine. I agree beside the first answer and according to Minnesota law, minors can enter into a contract but it is voidable on the simple grounds that the individual is not an adult. If the party continues to perform beneath the contract after they become an adult, the contract might be considered to be re-affirmed by running. The portion about "non-neccessaries" doesn't appear to relate. If you're not an adult, you can break any contract of any type. This be a fairly sparse query, so my answer is based single on the fact the contract be entered into by a creature the law considers to be a child.
A minor surrounded by the State of Minnesota MAY enter into a contract.

David is correct that such a contract is voidable by the minor until such time as the minor reaches the age of majority. If the contract have not been voided by the minor at that time, it remains within full force and effect as being affirmed at the age of majority.
Yes, but the minor must return the nonnecessaries or the pro thereof. Failure to do so constitutes unjust enrichment. The minor cannot preserve the benefit of a contract he is disaffirming.

Minors can contract for necessaries (food, clothing, shelter), and cannot use the defense of minority to escape it.

Why Is The UK's Judicial System So Lax?

It seems similar to the judicial system is so leniant here and offenders bring back away with mostly everything. They enjoy to physically harm someone and even next they get a meer slap on the wrist. A teen can threaten a small child and catch away with it whats wrong near your judicial system? Any place where a criminal can find away with doing doomed to failure things and the innocent have to live within fear something is drastically wrong!
Answers: Its so stupid they own it all wrong, you achieve a longer sentence for stealing than you would if you murdered or raped someone, i think its disgusting! Like the other saloon said nobody wants to remuneration for new prisons or hold them near them, i feel they should bring back the electric stool!
Interesting question

what next to all the McCann haters - who want to bypass the official system and hang them straight away

and the Barry George supporters, who want to bypass the officially recognized system and see him released immediately

and the armchair law lords who seem to come up with that Real judges resembling passing generous sentences, just for the hell of it

YA! answerer's don't give the impression of being to like the UK trial system very much
The prisons are full. There are far more general public in prison 10 years ago. Every time the goverment try to build a modern one, they face impossible to tell apart 2 objections.

1. Nobody requirements to have taxes increased to wages for it.
2. Prisons nearly always go amiss on planning permission becuase local residents don't want a prison close them.

Its a catch 22 - those that want more ancestors in prison are matching people who won;t pay envelope for it and don;t want one built near them.

Is it wrong to take two job and work without the other knowing nearly the other job?

Just wanna know if it can be toxic or illegal?

(both hold 100% NO way of knowing roughly speaking the other!!)

Unless you tell on me obviously!! LOL

I am a model, I work part time so everyone know about it and they are fine near it.

I now work next to an airlines company and want to know if its fine for me to work for another company in my free time at home!
Answers: nah it is not private at all, folks are allowed to have more than one situation in this world and allowed to do so to any make ends unite or to have as extra spending money when it is needed for specific things. it is your free time and yours to do beside as you please and there is no defence that any company should control what you are doing with your own time. so you a short time ago go on and be the gorgeous model you are and work at the airlines and just stick to your guns MG.
Check your contracts.

The airline may hugely well hold restrictions on other employment. Especially if it's in a corral that might bring embarrassment to the airline (do you do nude modeling?).

Also, the modeling contract may enjoy restrictions. For instance, they may require you to be available at certain times surrounded by which the airline would have you within the air.

If you can't communicate from the contracts or they are confusing, consult an attorney. Should be a one-shot deal and cost you anything the prevailing fee is within your area for one hour's attorney time.

** Note: This is a standard discussion of the subject matter of your cross-question and not legal proposal. Local laws or your picky situation may change the common rules. For a specific answer to your question you should consult endorsed counsel with whom you can discuss adjectives the facts of your case. **
No! Ti's better to check out the policy on your contract previously signing it to see if it allows you to do other jobs to avoid arguments near your employer.

More Questions and Answers:
[1041] - [155] - [1648] - [1990] - [2564] - [712] - [239] - [272] - [2533] - [44] - [1979] - [2436] - [2190] - [316] - [2515] - [2570] - [256] - [573] - [650] - [1417]

The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.

Answer question: