Law Questions and Answers

Is that legal surrounded by law?

I lately receive a DVD from Columbl House DVD Club.
It said i get to discharge for it, but i never ordered or even went to net site. I dont know how come the company knows my entitle, my address, and my email. I think somebody steal my information from my college, and use my info to creat an accounnt, and help me to lay down that DVD. But I dont want it and i am not going to pay for it. so I sent the DVD rear legs to the company. Is that legal the company never procure my information verify and use that kind of paying method on me. the method is dispatch me the good first, later i pay. i devise they should cancel the method because it is forcing me to buy. And I contemplate i dont have to settle for it, because they use my nickname that i use contained by school. they cant do anything on me because it is not my physical name within law
Answers: The regulation on this is that you cannot be responsible for something you did not order. Also, if something only sent to you, you may consider it a gift and preserve it.

Does equality before statute occur contained by China? If not, why and what is happening?

If you can, please provide some insinuation sites.
Answers: I amnot aware that China is an equity jurisdiction. Quite the contrary.

Do you think women should be surrounded by the infantry and other combat MOS's?

I say yes!
Equal rights are equal not special. They get hold of to join but find special treatment wtf?

During my time in the corps I met plent of womanly Marines that could definitly handle it.

What do you guys cogitate?
Answers: Free country! Enough said.
Special treatment in combat arms should not be allowed.Not everyone can do this situation. It is dangerous to assume that one and only a certain type of being can do it and not others.Having the wrong type of person surrounded by this position causes annihilation.It is too critical to limit your talent pool. I believe if you are an powerful "operator" it does not matter if you are man or women or gay.It does not business if you are black or white, citizen or not, Hispanic or Indian, if you can do the job and put money on up your teammates that is adjectives that matters.time.
'nuff said.
I say, if they are bent on this benign of life , agree to them try.
Infantry: No.
Armor & Artillery: Sure

I'm sure there are females that can feel the job, the stress, & increased physical standards...but when it comes to personal hygiene, men and women enjoy entirely different needs. Spending weeks contained by the field minus showering, changing clothes, etc may be zilch for men...but it can be a health risk for women. Mission compliance is key, especially within a combat zone. When it comes to women with increased hygiene wants, which may lead to decrease readiness, it's simply not proper.

Do you think some states should own the ability to become a NEW state?

Some states consistency overpowered by one section of the state and their voice is once in a blue moon heard. California surrounded by particular enjoy two different political opinions within north and south.
Answers: First, to correct some erroneous statements in the previous answers. No state have the right to leave the coalition. That was settled by the Civil War and a judicial decision straight thereafter.

Second, what Texas does have is the right to split into five states in need further Congressional approval. This right does not come from its being an independent country but from the annexation agreement.

Third, adjectives states have the right to split into multiple states. However, it requires approval from both Congress and the State legislature of the existing state. Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution.

In the history of this Country, a state have split in two on single one or two occasions. The first time (and I am not sure of this one) be in 1820 when Maine become a separate state from Massachusetts. The reason that I am not sure is that I do not know if Maine be still considered to be part of Massachusetts at that time or if the split have occurred faster.

The second time was during the Civil War when West Virginia split from Virginia. This split be legally questionable as the "justifiably recognized" legislature of Virginia was a rump legislature single comprised of members from the nouns that became West Virginia. The member elected to represent the rest of Virginia were sitting contained by Richmond and supporting the rebellion.
In a long, nonviolent, constitutional-willing process, yes, I suggest they should.

On the other hand, political differences such as that won't bring in a state split in two.

And by the opening, of curiosity, which side is Democratic and which is Republican, and which overpowers which?
I think they can if they want but i don't know the details. I do know that California and Texas are the one and only states allowed to leave the federation and become independent nations at their own discretion.

California Republic and the Republic of Texas single entered the Union near the understanding they can confer on the union at any time.
Sure why not. Just as okay. states should as well know how to merge together.i think Cape Cod and Southeastern Mass. ought to break away from Mass. and start a state call Cape Cod or Plymouth, for example. Boston tends to casualness the Cape somewhat. Born and raised within plymouth ,mass! Sounds like an interesting conception to me at least!

Which is worse-lying about a constant kind of sex or lying almost WMD & causing adjectives the lives lost plus cost?

Answers: Clinton bombed Iraq during his eight years, and backed up Bush's assertion of WMD's. I remember relations stating that Iraq had WMD's because Reagan have given them to them. What a relief it must be to the millions of Iraqis kill by Saddam that they weren't killed by WMD's.
A chemical Weapon be found in the combined states that has be traced back to Iraq.

So they didn't hold WMD?

quit watching 24 hour news. RESEARCH!
I can't believe that nation believe that the whole WMD entry was a not tell the truth generated by GWB within order to invade Iraq. Let's forget more or less the fact the Saddam Hussein have WMD and used it in times gone by...this is a proven fact! Let's not forget in the region of all the population who now enunciate GWB was lying spwed equal facts he did before he be ever president. Here is a little enumerate.

"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, concealed supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002

"Iraq's scour for weapons of mass destruction have proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is contained by power." -- Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002

"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's military capability of mass destruction program." -- Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors beside weapons of mass destruction." -- Madeleine Albright, February 1st, 1998

"He will use those firepower of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983." -- Sandy Berger, Clinton national financial guarantee advisor, February 18th, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent next to the US Constitution and laws, to clutch necessary schedule, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to shutting its weapons of mass destruction programs." That from a missive to President Clinton signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, October 9th, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has be engaged contained by the development of ordnance of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he have made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16th, 1998


"Hussein have chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeleine Albright, Clinton's secretary of state, November 10th, 1999

"We switch on with a adjectives belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has without being seen the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the money of delivering them." -- Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), September 19th, 2002


Shall I verbs?

Constitutional rights...right to bear arms.Plz Help PLZPLZPLZPLZ?

Alright long story short Tomorrow surrounded by government class we are have a debate about the second amendment of the constitution.I own to argue anti-guns which means I must own some good reason why guns should be done away with but I really inevitability to know why shouldnt they so that I know how to back my answers up and my opponent questions or statements up...
Answers: (1) Think roughly your argument VERY CAREFULLY.
Are you required to argue that guns should be banned? ALL guns should be disallowed? Some guns should be banned?
These are tough, and fundamentally tough arguments.
Think of arguments like --
Assault firepower serve no purpose other than to annihilate humans. They are not necessary for self-defense; they are smoothly accessible to criminals at gun shows and the like, and keeping them lawful only increases the supply for criminals.
Thousands general public are killed from gun related accident in the home than are "saved" or "protected" by guns at home.

But is the issue you're supposed to debate whether the Second Amendment constitutionally REQUIRES that gun ownership be permitted? That's a WHOLE different grill. You're not arguing whether guns SHOULD be prohibited, you're aruguing merely whether guns CAN be prohibited. That has to do next to the text of the Second Amendment (look it up), what a "well-regulated militia" medium, whether the Framers meant it to be an individual right, and what, if any confines there would be on that right (for example, we enjoy a right of free speech, but governments can outlaw child porn, libel, and speech that cause a breach of peace... likewise, even if the Second Amendment did provide a right to bear arms, that right really wouldn't be unlimited -- I'm guessing that states could prohibit people from owning a nuclear weapon.)

---
PS Don't listen to Derek. Part of study is arguing on behalf of positions you don't necessarily agree with -- it's the best opening to understand those positions' weakness. This is a very big issue that should be debated, and Derek is unaware to think that the tutor is "liberal" merely because he assigned one student to argue a position that is currently the majority position within most state legislatures, the Supreme Court, and Congress. Debates lug two sides.
Think about every time some gunman have used loopholes in the gun law to kill and spoil innocent people (Virginia Tech), or that disturbed kids get guns (Columbine).

People argue that the 2nd Amendment covers all guns, but I disagree. Hunting is fine, and have a gun to protect yourself and your home (although stats show that you're more likely to waste someone in your home than an intruder) is fine, but not a soul needs assault rifles and Uzis to do that. Those guns seize made and legally sold here, criminals procure their hands on them, and the subsequent thing you know, the cops enjoy to have the sawed-off assault rifles to save up with the unpromising guys.

It's all a vicious circle because Republicans imagine the only constituent of the Constitution that should be taken literally is the 2nd Amendment.
You can always run with the big points;
1. written when arms where on earth swords & muskets not AK-47s
2. States "A well regulated Militia, anyone necessary to the warranty of a free State, the right of the people to keep hold of and bear arms, shall not be infringed" not that you can hold gums for any reason, a short time ago to keep a resourcefully regulated militia.
The first thing that you will probably frontage is the statement "guns dont kill inhabitants, people wipe out people" which is true, a gun doesnt have a mind and cannot verbs its own trigger. People are required to do this in directive for the gun to cause interfere with.
Second, it is in respectively and every americans right to own and use a gun as long as they are not convicted of a felony or other crime that would remove that right from them.
We are allowed this right in direct to defend ourselves and our property against those who would preference to harm it or us.
Gun ownership is currently monitored by the affairs of state. You have to exceed a NCIC background check surrounded by order to purchase a handgun and several other firearms, thus keeping (or attempting to keep) guns out of the hand of those who are not legal to own them or who are considered dangerous.
Guns can be used to benefit the livelyhood of a nearest and dearest, entertain the marksman, and preserve onesself against harm.
Requirements are made that handgun now be sold next to trigger locks to prevent children from harming themselves. On the other completion of the debate (your end) many parents and owners of guns do not properly use these locks and children are harmed by the guns because they catch ahold of them.
The way that things are going within the world today, I feel that populace should be prepared to defend themselves within time of war, but they should be responsible going on for the containment of guns, the handling and the maintenance of them.
I hope this help and good luck.
Here are a few links which may minister to.

The reason the 2nd amendment is module of the Bill of Rights is because an unarmed population is powerless to stop abuses by a dictatorial senate, or remove the abusers from power. We could never have gain independence from the British and formed the United States of America if our founders have no guns.

Certainly times have changed, but the power to die off tyranny (should it ever arise), must other remain with the associates.

There is also the issue of personal safety- since most criminals get their guns without permission or through the black market, interdiction them simply takes guns away from law-abiding citizens who may call for them to protect their homes and families.
Two things -- first, the 2nd Amendment as it is currently interpreted one and only applies to federal gun control laws -- states are still free to regulate firearms adjectives they want. That's the current law, whether folks like it or not.

Second, to your point -- the govt have always be allowed to regulate behavior -- even for things that are constitutionally protected (speech, search warrant, etc.) -- as long as the need is compelling satisfactory, and the restrictions are closely tailored to suit that need.

So, for your position, you can try arguing that the govt have a compelling need to prevent gun-related terror campaign (human life human being a compelling interest) and that keeping guns off the streets may be the individual reasonable course to accomplish that. It's a tough sell, but one possible approach.
arming nutty associates with guns is an calamity waiting to happen.

the benefits of outlawing fire arms are visible: crime rate would drop. some argue that people who really looked-for them, like criminals, would still be capable of find weapons. yeah, that's true. but the certainty is not ALL would be able to find guns. and they almost other prey on those that likely wouldn't hold a gun, so the fact that we're keeping guns away from law-abiding citizens is inconsequential

however, on the flip side, i would resembling to point out a story about this one town contained by texas, where they made it mandatory for everyone to get a gun, and crime rate dropped to almost zero. still, i muse accidents are bound to arise. one kid in my town that go to my school accidentally get shot by his cousin, when they were playing around next to the one kid's dad's gun (i think he be a cop).
The Second Amendment was adopt in the get up of the War of American Independence. The thinking was that the men of America have the ultimate guarantee of choice sitting over the fireplace: a long rifle. If a ragtag militia with rifles could guarantee autonomy in the frontage of the world's #1 superpower, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, then it could guarantee our nouns against tyrrany at home.

Now things have changed. In lay down for personal weapons to serve this freedom-guaranteeing purpose, we would want stinger anti-aircraft missiles, tanks, possibly even small, portable nuclear weapons.

After more than 230 years of elections, next to only a few prominent examples of electoral fraud (Tilden-Hayes, Bush 2000), the American people rely on the ballot box and the civil rights lawsuit as their guarantors of freedom.

The Second Amendment does not work any longer. All it does is procure little children machine gunned by rival drug dealer fighting their turf battle. It served its purpose, but its time has come and gone.

========================
By the mode, what Coragryph wrote is wrong, dead wrong. The right to carry arms is in the Bill of Rights, which applies to the States pursuant to the 14th amendment. The states can regulate but not prohibit good posture arms. In New York, I have an out-and-out right to own handguns within my home, and to carry long arms within my car. I hold to register them, but it is my right to own them and to bear the long arm surrounded by public, though I am sure the police would violate my rights in doing so.

What is policing the internet? (civics homework)?

Answers: Not an easy answer.

Some site are policed by their moderators.

some sigtes are policed by government (i.e. if you are in China you are policed by china)

Some site are not policed at adjectives.

I do NOT like management policing. I prefer much more open and free debate.

Having said that I do NOT close to govt policing, I have categorically NOTHING against teh govt monitoring what is going on and would LOVE it if they got a full lot more aggressive at tracking down child pornography and child molesters.

Remember one thing. Absolute power lead to absolute corruption.

Should school teacher be allowed by law to use temperate force against the child under their aid?

Why or why not? Explain, discuss.
Answers: Yes. By that, I don't mean they should own free reign to beat children, but they should know how to use the same criteria used contained by the 50s and 60s. As it stands now, a coach can't even really defend himself or herself if attacked. The strap should be surrounded by every school. If properly used, it will be a deterrent, and uncommonly applied. I remember seeing a video taken in a class that showed an out-of-control young at heart girl that hit a teacher so sturdy in the facade her nose be broken. The principal and teacher removed the girl from class, suspended her, and call the parents to pick her up. Did the parents see the problem? No, they sued the school. That should not be. If I have ever come home from school and told mom I bring the strap, I would have gotten it at home again.
They are.
They can break up a scuffle.
Other than that I wouldn't want a teacher competent to use any force. This is for the safety of the trainer. There are some Strong kids out there and it's ashamed what could start to a teacher.
I simply don't want to loose a teacher over something they're not even remunerated to do.
corporal punishment ? yes, it's a universal psychology that
seem to get the attention of most children. Regardless
of what brand of hellians they're allowed to be outside of
school hours. Our educator need "the hammer" within their
classrooms.
if kids ignore the first notification when they play up, then yes the slipper, wicker should be used, i got a slap or two when i be a kid and it did me no harm...

what are we supposed to do when a kid go around beating other kids up and even attacking teacher..encourage it?
By "justifiable force", I assume you mean flogging, wicker
shoots under fingernails, electric shock to genitals, dampen
boarding, and being drawn and quarter. That should restore order contained by the classroom!

Is mooning legal surrounded by florida?

Answers: What? You've never heard of "Moon Over Miami"?
Are you kid? No.

800.03 Exposure of sexual organs. ---
It is unlawful to expose or exhibit one's sexual organs in public or
on the private premises of another, or so effective thereto as to be seen
from such private premises, surrounded by a vulgar or indecent manner, or to be
stripped in public except surrounded by any place provided or set apart for that
purpose. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor of the first point,
punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A mother's breast
feed of her baby does not underneath any circumstance violate this
section.

Note the chunk where it say "naked within public"; it'd fall below that since your butt is supposed to be covered in public.
It should be bent worldwide,you have be watching to much tv.

In Glendale, Calif. Why are Cops Videotaping You Getting a TIcket?

I livin in a community of 300k armenians and the crime here is fruitless not to mention the driving they do--horrendous.

Now, when the give general public tickets, two cameramen get out of the police coup¨¦ and videotape you and take down every word you enunciate while another police officer is writing a ticket?

Is this unusual or what or is this person a suspect or something?
Answers: Be joyous they do it.
it keeps them honest.
That shows how we (armenians) are smart and cops r dumb a$$es, since even when they ticket us, we can amount out SO MANY WAYS, to make up a story and win the intermediary, nd come outta the court not payin a single penny...
now i a short time ago heard this from u, they try to cassette every single **** nd words, so make our opening more difficult to figure out kool excuses, bt trust me they gotta digit out much more clever ways to collect proofs than taping...
ive lately been surrounded by glendale once, nd i cant tell u much how the driving natural life is there.
i live contained by SF...
omgg i saw that lol but i think they ask u first if u wouldnt mind individual videotaped and its ur choice and i ruminate they use it for those cop shows

More Questions and Answers:
[754] - [1330] - [2221] - [287] - [843] - [1292] - [68] - [1121] - [475] - [2236] - [1932] - [1020] - [1870] - [807] - [952] - [219] - [605] - [1728] - [2477] - [2273]

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

Answer question: