Law Questions and Answers
Does the government own the those?
The government is contained by every facet of our lives, We don't have control over our own bodies.You can donate blood but not get rid of it.
You can donate an organ but not sell it.
You can bestow sex away but not sell it.
You can enjoy alcohol but you can't have marijuanna.
if you are surrounded by the hospital
and you are given blood you have to retribution for it.
If you are given an organ you have to wage for it.
If you work in a Nevada dairy farm you can sell sex.
The political affairs grows and sells marijaunna. Freedom is an apparition in the here within America.
You don't even own your own body.
As long as the government can profit its OK to provide anything.
Slavery never ended it a moment ago changed its form.
Answers: Governments are ruling because somebody has to supervise how money is spent and somebody have to protect the land not to become a no man's territory .
Governments are originally since the beginnings of humanity the reaction to the problems they face in their time to day lives - but government have a problem :
folks always emergency a clean society while the individuals are mostly tainted themselves in legitimate life - for example : a guy may hike in a demonstration surrounded by front of a hospital demanding anti abortion laws but after ward he may try to find a hospital to apply abortion on his 13 years old daughter who get pregnant by mistake - people live within two personalities : one demands honesty and the other one is existing life - government are same - governments come up next to all kind of measures but it turns out those measures are mostly unfair or too cruel or too little or too deferred or simply not applicable in TRUE life - what you said is without blemish true but it is far more complicated
and the scare is if adjectives the world followed the same rules - it will be a disaster -
Yes it does. So alter it!
www.ronpaul2008.com
Sorry Yahoo answers, I know I just answered 2 question in a row by departure his website...but I'm not a spammer! ;o)
I'd rather live surrounded by the sixth ring of hell than the seventh. What Saudi Arabia got to do near it? Your the guy that should be living in Saudi lead to your too dumb to know when your loosing your precious American freedom.
When they start offering you free showers its time to get out the guns.
No, governing body does NOT "own" the people; it basically THINKS it does!
As illustrated by your examples, several politicians act as if triumphant an election (and using the title "honorable") somehow make them king and slavemaster.
In theory, the power of Congress comes single from the Constitution.
Theoretically, there are single about twenty powers that Congress may exercise (see Article I paragraph 8), and the 10th amendment says that everything else is reserved to the family (and to the states, but the powers of the states are also limited).
That's the theory. Theoretically, nearby should be no difference between theory and practice. In practice, here certainly is!
In practice, most Representatives and Senators within the Congress ignore the restrictions and try to cart more power over the people. (One exception is Dr. Ron Paul. He is the just one who ALWAYS votes against anything the Constitution does not allow, That's how he earned the pet name "Dr. No".)
Where does it state that the United States government can properly collect taxes?
Answers: Look behind the firkin of a 9mm. I think it is stated pretty clearly here.
Article II: ... The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes..."
Amendment XVI. The Congress shall own power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, lacking apportionment among the several states, and without high regard to any census or enumeration.
This interrogate has come up until that time in this blog. In 1913, the US command passed the first Federal income tax and it be imposed (under Article I, section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution) during the Civil War, afterwards again in the 1890s, and again after the Sixteenth Amendment be ratified surrounded by 1913. Current income taxes are imposed under these constitutional provisions and diverse sections of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, including 26 U.S.C. § 1 (imposing income tariff on the taxable income of individuals, estates and trusts) and 26 U.S.C. § 11 (imposing income tax on the taxable income of corporations).
For individuals, Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) is gross income smaller number any above-the-line deductions (§ 62). Above-the-line deduction are listed within § 62 and include trade or business deductions, alimony (§ 215), and moving expenses (§ 217). Taxable income is AGI smaller amount (1) itemized deductions or the applicable standard estimate, whichever is greater, and (2) a deduction for any allowable personal exemptions for the taxpayer, the taxpayer's spouse (if file jointly), and the taxpayer's dependents. (In certain cases involving high income taxpayers, the allowed personal exemptions may be reduced or even eliminated.)
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution (the "Taxing and Spending Clause"), specifies Congress's power to interrupt "Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises," but Article I, Section 9 requires that, "Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
In addition, the Constitution specifically constrained Congress' ability to be in somebody`s space direct taxes, by requiring it to distribute direct taxes in proportion to respectively state's census population. It be thought that head taxes and property taxes (slaves could be tax as either or both) be likely to be abused, and that they bore no relation to the deeds in which the federal system had a legal interest. The fourth clause of section 9 consequently specifies that, "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein back directed to be taken."
Taxation was also the subject of Federalist No. 33 pen secretly by the Federalist Alexander Hamilton below the pseudonym Publius. In it, he explains that the wording of the "Necessary and Proper" clause should serve as guidelines for the legislation of laws about taxation.
You can choose NOT to pay income rates, but if you do you are in for a punch-up you will never win.
Article I Section 8 of the Constitution allows Congress to levy taxes.
The 16th Amendment -- ratified over 90 years ago and confirmed as ratify by the US Supreme Court on numerous occasions -- specifically allows for income taxes.
Title 26 of the US Code -- enact as law by Congress and repeatedly upheld by federal courts for decades -- sets forth the specific rules for levy and collecting taxes.
And 26 USC 7203 makes it a crime to not clear taxes.
How do the people that...?
donated to the madalaine mccann fund have a feeling that it has business status not charity status and is going to be used to recompense for the mccanns to fight the impending court luggageAnswers: Maybe thats what it was set up for - surrounded by the long run.. Innocent till proven guilty..
As i said earlier when someone posted something similar, not a soul twisted people's arm to donate money, they did it of their own volition and if they are so upset that the money could be used for a possible court case, they should ask for their money spinal column.
Can I be kept from knowing on my ex's door to pick my child for visitation?
He is living in a woman's house who can't stand to enjoy me or my husband knocking on her door on sheduled pickup times for court ordered visitation. She have posted two no trespassing signs and verbally told us not to step on her property or she will ring the cops.Answers: Call your ex on a cell phone when you get near and have the kids get together you outside. She's a jerk but that's an unproblematic alternative to knocking on the door.
Then any a) he needs to come upon you somewhere else to pick up your children or b) let her phone the cops when you pick up your children at her house. Cops will side with you as long as you are unperturbed and are acting as an adult. Do not allow your children to become pawn.
Pay through Worker's Compensation?
My son just started a current job. His second week on the livelihood (moving furniture in a warehouse) he tripped over a tram guiderail and hurt his ankle. He went via ambulance to the ER and they give him Worker's Comp forms. He was cleared to be in motion back to work after three days and in a minute back on the available job. Question: Is he entitled to be paid for the three days he be out through Worker's Comp?Answers: I am not sure---it depends on if he was laid-back
Workman's Comp only pays the medical bills. Unless the company have something about lost wages due to injury on the position I don't think he will bring paid. Your son requirements to check with his
company's payroll or human resource department.
He should be salaried if the doctor who treated him and filled surrounded by the form stated that he was unfit for duty on those days. Then he would be rewarded by the employer's insurance company.
how do you spell FREELOADER!!!!!!!!!!!!! if I were his employer i would repay the three days and the medical bills and fire his sorry a-ss. " ambulance for a twisted ankle." he could have gone to the bosses organization, elevated and iced his foot and sipped the bosses scotch. but as long as you started, may as well see it through...return with a lawyer (workers comp will pay) ...find a check for five grand and they cannot fire you for a hundred and five weeks..FREELOADER...
lizzie is right, mispipik will obtain the employer sued
If I remember correctly the first 3 days are not paid. Like job loss. If he was lone off for 3 days nearby is NO WAY he was hurt. When I twisted my ankle it be more than 8 weeks before I be released. My boss and I fell 20ft. and landed on a 4" piece of pipe. We go to the hospital and were told to bring 3 days off. We both refuse. We went directly support to work. There is no way your kid be hurt bad ample to bother with an ambulance. He's a DRAMA QUEEN!!! My boss and I didn't even hang around for an ambulance which was call for as soon as it happened. T ell your boy to MAN UP!!!!
What do copyright and trademarks laws enunciate about this? Answer the following question:?
I print t-shirts. I want to make some Green Bay Packers shirts for myself and probably some friends and family. I'm pretty sure it is Illegal for me to put the Packers Logo on a shirt and flog it for a profit. but how far does that go?Can I print the trademarked Packers logo if it's a short time ago for myself?
Can I print the trademarked logo and give it as a gift(making no profit)?
What if here is no logo? Can I print a shirt that just say Green Bay Packers?
Can I sell a shirt that purely says "Green Bay Packers" for a profit?
Any recourses would relieve, I always hold questions something like this kind of stuff.
Answers: Can I print the trademarked Packers logo if it's purely for myself?
Yes, the trademark protection only applies to commercial use.
Can I print the trademarked logo and furnish it as a gift(making no profit)?
Yes, ditto above.
What if there is no logo? Can I print a shirt that freshly says Green Bay Packers?
IF not for mart then yes. If for mart no.
Can I sell a shirt that newly says "Green Bay Packers" for a profit?
Iffy, you may do it but you could win sued, not worth it.
http://www.nolo.com/resource.cfm/catID/D...
http://www.nolo.com/resource.cfm/catID/D...
You cannot use a trademark in any agency that (1) dilutes the value of the mark off in commerce, or (2) competes beside the right of the trademark holder to use the mark within commerce.
So, using it privately, on your wall in your apartment -- that would probably dribble within the gala use exception. That applies whether you are using the name or the logo or both.
Printing it on a t-shirt or coffee mug for your own use, or as a one-time endowment, would be an infringement, but it would be a very minor one and not worth the cost to try and prosecute.
The more you trade name, the greater the infringement, and the more it becomes worthy of attention.
The article is -- if they find out you are infringing, and then do nil -- that harms them in any adjectives attempts to prosecute. So, companies will at the very most minuscule usually send a cease-and-desist dispatch if you are doing more than a personal usage.
Can I sue a fast food tie up for finding a bug in my food?
Answers: Yes, but you enjoy to prove it caused you damage. If you say mental distress you must enjoy doctors bills to back it up. If it made you sick, like thing. Then you enjoy to prove it was contained by your food from there.
Be geared up for them to investigate you and counter sue if they can prove you faked it.
contained by the end it probably wouldn't be worth. Think of it this bearing, would you sue your mom if you found a bug in one of her meal? Don't eat at that place again or tolerate the manager know and bring a free meal out of them.
Why do some people focus marijuana should stay illegal?
I don't smoke marijuana, but I surmise it should be legalized mostly because its a natural "god" given plant. But, what I'm wondering is why do the gov. and other citizens think it shouldn't be legalized? It's not resembling its more dangerous than tobacco. So, why?Answers: Good Question !!!!!!! RScott
Because they don't hold a clue about the uses that pot have...not just from smoking it and medicinal.
You can gross STRONG paper and clothes from pot. As okay as furniture and ethanol easily. There are several others also.
Well, actually (unfortunately...) Marijuana IS more chancy than tobacco. Does the term "mind altering effect" propose anything to you? Tobacco smoke, while still dangerous, does not alter the mind significantly (excluding addiction, as it doesn't rather pertain to the term within this usage). I can tell you from...erm...an informant, that Marijuana is much more insecure than tobacco, no matter what the stoners speak.
Should marijuana stay illegal? No, it isn't contained by some places. In Denver, they treat it similarly to alcohol. If you are 21+, you can legally posses marijuana as long as it is smaller amount than an ounce. Now, the technicals of this law are shady at best, but it is reasonably clear that many ethnic group think duplicate way as you, but next to slightly more reason. They sanction the dangers involved surrounded by marijuana use (unlike you) but they argue that its side effects are minor,possibly negligible, when compared to alcohol.
Also, Opium, Psychoactive Mushrooms, and Cocaine are adjectives derived from "god given plants", mushrooms more directly than the other two as they don't need to be processed. Most general public think of those drugs as "worse" than marijuana, so if you're going to verbs the "god gave it to us...let smoke it" card, then you'll hold to include those three in your argument.
Because we already enjoy a problem with those drinking and driving all the while knowing that you shouldn't be doing that. We don't inevitability another group now driving while large.
While I believe that for medical reasons it should be permitted, for shear pleasure no. Not until such time that some system is set surrounded by place that prevents all those from driving or operating equipment while under the influence of...doesn`t matter what.
Taxing the stuff isn't so hard. The governing body could issue permits at a set cost. Usage would be predetermined to those people that are paying the essential fees and violators would pay thickset fines.
Because we have abundantly of ignorant and fearful sheep among us who guess that anybody who uses a chemical either to experience pleasure or alter his state of consciousness must thus be a danger to society. And indistinguishable kind of twats also ruminate that just because something may be discouraging for you and abused by some, it must therefore be private and banned for everybody. Many years ago at first, merely the pot growers and distributors were condemned by the imperative, and then after that on the conservative fearmongers rationalized that those who buy and use the stuff are financially supporting their activities, so in consequence they must be treated like criminals too. Some nation feel that pot should remain dubious because smoking pot makes general public lazy and indolent. Yes, even though nobody should be unfolding you how to run YOUR life surrounded by the land of the free, the Powers That Be want to breed sure that we all well crank out our share of productivity until we finally retire or die. Some folks claim that allowing access to drugs would cause more crime and saloon accidents. On the contrary, legalize them would reduce crime as it would put adjectives the drug dealers out of business (no armed drug dealing thug within the streets could ever compete with a policy inspected and licensed pharmacist). And making drugs illegal doesn't stifle drug use (and, therefore, sports car accidents), any more than making alcohol illegal during Prohibition decrease alcohol use or alcohol-related crimes and accidents (it truly increased them). The only reason alcohol and tobacco aren't similarly banned is because they've be deeply ingrained into Western culture plentifully longer than other drugs, and politicians don't want to have to donate up the tax revenue the administration collects from them. Otherwise, there is simply no moral or practical difference between allowing somebody to smoke a communal or drink a beer. It's high time the command made drug use an individual right and responsibility, and stop telling empire what they can or can't put into their own damn bodies.
Thomas Jefferson and Dr. Benjamin Rush (who was George Washington’s personal physician and a signer of the Declaration of Independence) both foresaw that the federal rule might someday attempt to control drugs. Dr. Rush gave this diagnosis:
"Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when tablets will organize into an underground dictatorship... To restrict the art of salutary to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and own no place in a republic... The Constitution of this republic should construct special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom."
Thomas Jefferson offered a second assessment: "If people consent to the government prefer what foods they eat and what medicine they take, their bodies will soon be contained by as sorry a state as are the souls who live under tyranny."
How can I get a free revocable power of attorney form for the state of Maryland?
Answers: Here's another resource. You'll own to copy & paste it into Word or WordPerfect:
http://www.ilrg.com/forms/powerofattorne...
http://www.uslegalforms.com/powerofattor...
Make sure to carry it notarized too.
What is an easy creative approach to remember the 26th amendment?
It is the amendment that they lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. They did it during the Vietnam war because teens thought it not event to be able to draft and fracas in the time of war but not able to vote for the leaders.And lately to let you know I get this from a text book and I can't remember it.
Answers: Twenty-six vanished twenty-one
for age eighteen and voting fun.
26-21-18.
Pretend it's a locker combo and just voice it over and over and over.
its easy and logical they thought it be unfair to be at odds and not be able to vote. purely shorten it to the main notion and youll remember it
hope i helped
MOST ALL KIDS UR AGE CANT WAIT TO BE 18 SO THEY CHANGED IT TO 18-OK NOW WHEN UR 18 ALOT OF HOMES HAVE WARS WITH THERE PARENTS LOL AND KIDS NEVER THINK ITS FAIR SO THEY USUALLY HAVE TO LISTEN TO THERE LEADERS SO U HAVE 18-WARS-LEADERS HOPE THIS HELPED I USED TO LEARN LIKE THIS TOO GOODLUCK!!!!!!!!!
Try asking a press about it on YahooAnswers
Well, how more or less trying this:
26th Amendment - Vietnam war draft at 18. Voting age lowered from 21 to 18.
Then you can be creative when writing the definition.
I other try to remember something that - relates to the subject.
Dear Lizzy:
You don't have to be youthful, single and free you just own to be an American at the age of eighteen to vote.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or summary by the United States or by any State on account of age.
And I don't ponder it is fair that soldiers cannot come home and drink.
If you confrontation for the country you should get every privelege allowed within the country
2+6 is 8. add 10.
More Questions and Answers:
[2051] - [2202] - [1469] - [1101] - [1952] - [1257] - [1604] - [2255] - [1242] - [2360] - [450] - [1122] - [2210] - [144] - [266] - [2573] - [1820] - [571] - [1591] - [1183]
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question: