Law Questions and Answers
Should marijuana be legalized?
Its not physically addictive and its natural.Answers: Marijuana should be legalized for masses different reasons.
First, for medical purposes. A doctor can reasonably use cocaine products and heroin based products, which are mode more harmful than marijuana and but to many inhabitants still fear this drug! Personally, I would fairly a loved one smoke a joint to lighten their pain than to see them help yourself to and Oxycotin! The US is hypocritical when it comes to banning marijuana all the same having a uncertain drug like alcohol legitimate. I have on the other hand to hear of someone dieing from smoking pot yet thousands of individuals die every year from alcohol!
Second, legalizing marijuana would also contained by turn legalize the hemp industry. The hemp industry brings millions of dollars a year into other countries that are not fearful of this drug. It could do one and the same for us! Hemp is one of the most useful plants on the planet. It can be used to spawn clothes which are more durable than cotton and breathes better than cotton. Hemp seed grease can be used in cooking and have far less rotund content than any other cooking oil. Hemp can be used to craft shampoos and soaps and other cleaners that are not harmful to our enviroment. Hemp can be made into tabloid, which in turn, solves our forestry problems. Hemp grease can be used to produce plastics instead of using potroleum based products. Hemp fibers can be used to strengthen cement and other business applications. Hemp can be used to make interior panel for cars. Hemp seeds can be ground into flour and used for baking and contains beneficial omega fatty acids, amino acids, and minerals. Hemp seed can be used to produce non dairy "milk" similar to soy. Biofuels such as biodiesel and alcohol fuel can be made from the oils surrounded by hemp seeds and stalks and hemp produces more vivacity per acre per year than corn, sugar, flax, or any other crop currently grown for ethanol or biodiesel.
Third, If marijuana was permissible it would greatly reduce our overcrowded jail! Marijuana users get punished on a daily basis for thier "crimes" and the jails are jam-packed with business men, housewives and college students that really are not criminals but in recent times like to enoy a pious toke every once in awhile. Our administration focuses to much on the marijuana drug war instead of focusing on getting tangible criminals off the streets.
Absolutely Not!!!!!!!!!
So let me procure this right, there is not a soul out there that oppose gay marriages?
I posted a interrogate and no one could make clear to me any negative things in the order of gay people getting married. So why isn't it allowed surrounded by all states?Answers: Of course here are many individuals against gay marriages.
Just because they cannot find a valid argument against gay marriage doesn't mean that they agree beside them.
Personally I don't give a donkey's butt who marry who. It doesn't affect my life, and it isn't my business.
Basically, the "moral majority", or the "Christian Right" start screaming around it if it nears any sort of legislation.
Personally, I enjoy absolutely no issue beside it - just so long as not a soul forces me to do something I don't want to do. So what people do at the back closed doors with another consenting developed is really not any of my business.
A lot of individuals are opposed to gay matrimonial.
Even in California, when the cross-question of allowing gay marriage be put to a referendum, (Proposition 22) the majority of the population voted against it by a margin of around 2-to-1.
It's a subject, though, that intelligent argument about is almost impossible. People who are both for it and against it tend to hold their beliefs severely firmly, so any argument tends to immoral very hurriedly into name calling and insults.
Richard
Richard
The bigger problem is calling it Marriage. Doing that infers that the Courts could force a Church to achieve them against their will. Call it a Civil Union granting rights, only perform by Civil Servants and maybe those opposed will rear legs off.
The Church's enjoy right too!!
I agree with Rihiola on the matter.
How long do you get for threatning police officer and a judge?
Need to know.Thanks!Answers: Completely depends upon jurisdiction. Under Federal tenet, if they only charged you near one count, 18 USC 1503, your max sentence is 10 years. It would likely be smaller amount than that, but still substantial.
You said "police officers and a judge" so you're looking at multiple counts...and any prosecutor worth his brackish will find two or three other things to charge you with.
I'd draw from a lawyer within whatever jurisdiction it is, pronto. Judges don't clutch kindly to threats.
The amount of time you obtain for that is determined by the intermediary. I'd suggest you bring your toothbrush when you go to court.
Ban tobacco products?
Do you believe that the federal government, should order ALL tobacco products?If your answer is yes, please explain.
if your answer is no, please explain that too
Answers: No, I don't think tobacco products should be prevented. I made several points about smoking surrounded by response to a different question. I'll copy -n- soft mass it here. But, just to tip off you ahead of time, it's really long.
--------------------------------------...
Smoking is fine.
I smoke and probably always will.
The so call cancer risk is hooey. In my opinion, it's cast-offs science that's constantly recycled to "feed" the rich and to support specific political agendas.
"In epidemiologic research [research involving the study of the causes, distribution, and control of disease contained by populations], relative risks of less than 2 [that is, 100% increment of risk] are considered small and usually completely difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias or effects of confounding factor that are sometimes not evident." (The National Cancer Institute, "Abortion and Possible Risks for Breast Cancer; Analysis and Inconsistencies", October 26, 1994).
Even risk elevation smaller than 200% (Some even say 300%.) do NOT prove that the risk even exists. There are too frequent variables, errors, biases, and so on. That being said, I importantly doubt that ANYONE can name a single study involving tobacco that have yielded results showing a risk elevation of smaller amount than 200% or even 100%.
Conning people nearly their health is a fast growing industry, and it's all something like politics and money. Enjoying tobacco (particularly smoking) is politically incorrect. What's more, the pockets of politicians and big pharma are being crumpled by the anti-smoking activists. How? Simple- Big pharma foots the bills of the anti-smoking nut job and their junk science. And, surrounded by turn, big pharma rakes contained by on the cash from campaign that induce so-called addicts to quit using tobacco beside cessation "therapies" made available by. Yup, BIG PHARMA, of course. And big pharma provides money and support to politicians surrounded by exchange for spreading their bull sh*t. The reason for smoking ban is nothing more than a panic tactic deceitfully used surrounded by order to convince race of the "risks" so they'll throw their money and support at politicians, big pharma, and the anti-smoking movement.
DON'T BUY INTO THE LIES!
Of course doctors will tell you that at hand is a horrible risk. With all the second foot smoke floating around, making people believe that there's a cancer risk is going to constantly convey them running to their doctors in droves. [Money, money, money, and more money!] Additionally, medical students are propagandized throughout their teaching.
I don't think here is anywhere remotely close to enough evidence to indicate that tobacco use cause cancer. As I said, too many variables.
As for second foot smoke- Let's assume for a moment that smoking can indeed cause cancer- Take lung cancer, for example... Decades overrun from the time HEAVY smokers start smoking to the time they develop lung cancer. If smoking is truly the reason for their cancer later wouldn't it take at least possible a few hundred years for those exposed to second hand smoke to pick up up? How do we know that cigarette smoke causes the cancer as unwilling, let's say, smog? We don't. A bunch of smokers inflicted near cancer isn't evidence. Neither is a bunch of cancer patients who have be exposed to second hand smoke. There are far too oodles factors to consider. There are far too heaps possibilities.
At one time, marijuana was thought to turn culture into maniacs. All the "experts" agreed and produced a mountain of "evidence" to stern up their claims. Conning people around their health have been going on for a while and have become increasingly popular. The powers that be employ dubious methodology, manipulation of statistics, and facts out of context contained by order to dupe inhabitants into believing their nonsense. They inflict us to obsess over cancer, because they know that cancer scare the crap out of us (and, therefore, rake in the big bucks).
Most of the so-called "evidence" that the anti-smokers rely on consists of statistics. Well, statistics are unreliable. They can be fudged to copy whatever the statistician requests to be believed. (For instance- There's a computer program called SAMMEC <Smoking Attributable Morbidity, Mortality, and Economic Cost> that produces tons of the estimates of smoking deaths. And it will nurture you whatever number you want depending upon your information input.) Likewise, with any convention of statistics, there is the potential for error. And they're really not science. Furthermore, they can be re-packaged to give a picky impression. To illustrate [clever re-packaging]: Estimates of "increased risk" are recurrently used to frighten. Take Professor Sir Richard Doll's figures for example- Professor Doll reckon that about 160 within 100,000 smokers developed lung cancer. This could be expressed by saying that within is a 24 times greater risk if you smoke. But it could also be expressed by saying that you own a 99.8% chance of NOT getting lung cancer.
Another issue that I own with statistics is that they don't provide ample information. They only reveal one truth. FACT: Cancer is mostly a disease of the elderly. Cancer is increasing because, contrary to what many believe, associates are living longer and healthier lives. This is why the "increased risk" statistics provided by the anti-smoking movement don't mention the reality that most lung cancer occurs inside or beyond the normal stock of death (a time at which SOMETHING will most credible cause us to die whether or not we smoke tobacco).
I haven't even touched on the several contradictory statistics- such as those which show that Chinese women hold one of the highest lung cancer rates within the world even though very few of them smoke- and such as those which show that, while Japan is one of the heaviest smoking countries, it's also among those near the highest life span expectancy. Statistics further show that more people smoked within the U.S. during the World Wars than at any other time in our history. But the 1950's brought a babe boom. (There goes the claims that smoking cause impotence and infertility!) There are statistics which show that smokers who exercise regularly have smaller amount disease than sedentary non-smokers. What's more, until cervical cancer was proven to be cause by a virus, 13% of cases were fitfully claimed to have be caused by smoking.
The trickery doesn't shutting with statistics. Claims are cleverly worded so as to organize us into thinking one way or another. We are human being programmed without realize it. For example: Instead of being told that someone have decided that smoking MIGHT be a factor that contributes to such-and-such disease, we're told that the disease is "smoking-related" (thereby major us to believe that the disease is actually directly cause by cigarette smoke).
It's laughable that the anti-smoking movement wants us adjectives to buy into the fallacy that any height of cigarette smoke is harmful. This is a medical howl! There are safe and unsafe level of EVERYTHING. This is common awareness.
And what is it about tobacco that's so noxious anyway? Oh yea, it's the nicotine. HA! That's another laughable claim. If nicotine is so harmful later why is it marketed to us contained by gum and patches? And why aren't the powers that be trying to upset us away from gorging ourselves with tomatoes, potatoes, black & green tea, pepper, and so forth? (Yes, they contain varying levels of nicotine.)
Talk just about receiving regular doses of lies! I could stir on all year..
--------------------------------------...
TO ADD:
I'm still waiting for the proof that it's as harmful as claimed.
As I said- There are locked and unsafe levels of EVERYTHING. This is adjectives knowledge.
And, again- A bunch of smokers inflicted near cancer isn't evidence. Neither is a bunch of cancer patients who have be exposed to second hand smoke. There are far too frequent factors to consider. There are far too plentiful possibilities.
As far as the rights of non-smokers are concerned- I can understand the desire to prevention smoking within services which people HAVE TO call on at some point (i.e. hospitals, government buildings, public school, etc...). However, no one is forcing you to humiliate restaurants, for example. To be blunt, if you visit an establishment knowing that smoking is allowed and that you disapprove, it isn't your robustness that concerns you but rather the inconvenience. Well, sorry, but smokers' freedom to wallow in their cigarettes shouldn't be encroached upon simply because family feel inconvenienced. You hold the choice to turn around and walk out or to not enter within the first place.
Furthermore, anyone who contributes to industries that pollute while complaining about smokers is zilch less than a hypocrite. The automobile industry, the grease industry, the meat and dairy industries, and so on- They are responsible for much of the air pollution that we are forced to breathe respectively day. But they are also the politicians' bread and butter, that`s why actions are not taken against them. You want to stomp out my cigarette while supporting the world's worst polluters. Shame on you. If you don't want to smell cigarette smoke next make the choice to not drop by establishments which permit smoking.
Demanding that business owners prohibit smoking is no different than demanding that empire not smoke in their own homes. Whoever owns the property should produce the decision. Because, after adjectives, no one is forcing you to enter. Fighting for smoking ban is the equivalent of admitting that you are too stupid to bring in decisions which you touch are right for you and for those whom you are responsible for. And it is literally fighting for business owners to be robbed of their right to opt how they wish to run their businesses. The solution to your problem is simple- Don't call in or work for establishments in which smoking is allowed.
For those who argue that smoking ban help to keep hold of people not dangerous by limiting smoking to the outdoors and to smokers' homes, automobiles, etc- I suggest you re-think your logic. In case you haven't notice, smoke floats. You will eventually breathe second hand smoke regardless whether you realize it or not.
There are abundant people who are against smoking altogether and believe that it should be outlawed. One of their arguments is that it costs a large amount of money to treat smokers for medical conditions and that society "foots" the bill for those who are uninsured. Yes, society "foots" the bill for the uninsured. But this is not a valid argument against smoking, as society foots the bill for ALL who are uninsured (not just smokers). Should we illegalize harmful foods and beverages? Or how about illegalizing perfume and cologne since they motivation violent reaction in those who are allergic?
Sound ridiculous? It isn't any more ridiculous than smoking ban that are based upon unreasonable arguments, misinformation, and ignorance.
What's more, since tobacco is taxed, I am of the evaluation that tobacco use isn't just a freedom but also a right. I don't see anyone warfare to end tobacco taxation. Fair is fair- If my right to smoke is infringed upon later my tobacco purchases shouldn't be taxed.
In 1998 the United States Supreme Court threw out the E.P.A.'s study, which claimed that second mitt smoke kills, and call it junk science. I agree near the Supreme Court. I don't believe that second hand smoke kill. And neither do many of you, otherwise you wouldn't call round establishments in which smoking is permitted. Many of you aren't at adjectives concerned about the effects of cigarette smoke on your strength. You're just annoyed. Probably seem like I maintain harping on that, but it's the truth.
Those who cheer for smoking bans (i.e. what they perceive as victories) should be mindful of the certainty that something they enjoy may deeply well be taken from them in the future. Smoking in public places is a short time ago another freedom lost. People think they hold won freedom- the so called freedom to breathe fresh nouns. But government official and politicians don't care in the order of you any more than big business. Their only concern is money.
What will you complain roughly when smoking ends in adjectives public places throughout the world? Think you will be breathing clean nouns THEN? You won't.
I am not robbing you of your rights, but politicians sure want you to think so.
"Those who would distribute up essential Liberty, to purchase a little makeshift Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
--Ben Franklin
Just some food for thought:
The anti-smoking movement is rooted in Nazi Germany. Hitler (who be actually a smoker at one time) have been quoted as dictum that tobacco is, "the wrath of the red man against the white man..." The Nazis, being anti-smoking and anti-alcohol (among other things), promoted tribal hygiene and purity. Hitler is the father of the anti-smoking movement.
when a govt protects the people from themselves, they can not name the people free
or use the freedom propaganda
technically no.exact we are a free country
morally yes...because smoking does harm ancestors (whether from second hand or lately to keep ancestors from harming themselves ((kinda approaching the stupid seat belt laws)))
As a adherent of freedom, I don't think the parliament should be banning tobacco.
However, I would prefer a full disallow rather than prohibition smoking in restaurants, bar, etc. If tobacco is legal to vend, legal to buy, and lawful to own you should be able to smoke anywhere, provided the establishment itself allows smoking. If a restaurant/bar owner requirements to ban smoking contained by his/her establishment thats fine, it's his/her place, but the government shouldn't regulate that. If you don't close to it, go somewhere else.
No - BUT they should restriction coffee & sodas
Badgering the Witness?
Is there really an objection call Badgering the witness? I saw it on one of the many imperative shows no TV but someone I know who took a law seminar over the summer that near is no such thing. If not, what is the closest item to it?Answers: Many lawyers will certainly use this technique to try to get someone to read aloud something that will help them win their grip.
They will call the witness a con artist or other words to make someone angry plenty to say something that will relief the lawyer's case.
It's not so much that at hand is no such thing. It's more approaching the fact that it's not outstandingly likely to surface in a definite court of law.
Badgering a witness is dramatic, so it have it's place on a TV drama show.
But in a material life courtroom, the trial have been so alertly coreographed by the prosecution, defence, and the peacemaker, that it's almost impossible for that kind of conduct to steal place before a jury.
In legitimate life here are usually very few suprises within an actual courtroom, and when they do take place, it commonly ends up in a mistrial.
Of course there's an objection call badgering the witness. I worked for the court system for heaps years, and it is a very adjectives objection. Lawyers do it all the time. The entity who took a law seminar is misinformed, or wasn't engrossed. Badgering a witness is not allowed contained by a court of law, and if the at odds attorney objects, the objection is almost always sustained.
My employer kept their matching portion of the 401K they fired me. Is it legalized for them to do so?
I was at the work for 8 months, got fired because owner changed china hobby plans. When I rolled over the 401K, they deducted their contribution, claiming I be not vested.I called up the 401K investment company, they said I am entitled to the full amount. I contacted my former employer but they unobserved me.
Who should I complain to get a honourable hearing and arbitration?
Answers: look within the Summary Plan Description that they provided you. The match may be vested or it may not be. If here was a vesting rota attached to the matching contributions afterwards you were promising not entitled to it. But, abundant companies do not have a vesting diary on their match (mine doesn't) and yours could hold been one of them. That Summary Plan Description will bring up to date you exactly what you need to know.
If and individual if there is no vesting diary on that match next you should contact the US Department of Labor. Do not do this without verify the vesting schedule as they won't do anything lacking that information and YOU are the one who should get it.
Yes it is official if there is a vesting length. Usually, employer matches to 401Ks hold a vesting period. You own to work there a constant length of time for it to become yours to keep.
Check your 401K contract again to see if specifically the case.
Physically progress there and calendar meetings. You can't nickname on the phone about matter like this. You entail to physically go sermon to someone. Get some paperwork for proof from the investment company and take it to them. If you progress in in that whining and moaning they're going to tell you duplicate thing. Go contained by there near proof, and tell them if they don't product things right, your going to sue. If they refuse, sue them for the portion the took, as ably as lawyer fees and any other fees associated near the lawsuit.
Good luck!
BBB will help you (better business buruea).
Good luck,,,don't you aversion ($%&hole companies? ehhehehe
happy holidays!
Yes, it is legitimate for them to do so. If you were within only 8 months, you be not vested.
Whoever you talked to at the 401K company doesn't know what they be talking nearly, obviously.
Yes. 401K plans are designed beside vesting formulae, and if you don't meet the rules...the employer contribution is not yours.
My neighbors are dumping their garbage surrounded by my garbage can. Are they breaking any kinds of federal law?
They dump all their rubbish in them and I hold no where to put mine. They live surrounded by an apartment complex that should have trash chutes or some sympathetic of dumpster. They have straightforward access to my garbage can so I can see why they would use it, but it's MY garbage can! I've tried discussion to them, but all they make available me is attitude and they deny it. what am i supposed to do then?Answers: Call the police and find out
Take a picture or Video narrative them
Illegally dumping Trash??????????
Move your cans???????????/
I'm confused roughly why your cans are out when it isn't refuse day--aren't there county rules more or less that? Of course the garbage service you payment for is not under federal/felony law. It's a county or city garbage company! anyhow, I would try a undergo trap...I've always gotten accurate results with that.
26 Ammendments for the Constitution?
Okay so we have a huge project surrounded by History and we have to hold the 26 ammendments done by tomorrow. He said we couldn't take the packet home because he needed them so could anyone help us find them? Thanks soo much!!Answers: I am not sure what in the region of the amendments you need, but maybe this website will help.
http://www.essayworld.com/essays/govt/84...
Take the time to read it.
the 10th amendment say that the government can not do anything not programmed in the constitution.
I bet it would be jammy for you to find lots of government programs that violate this amendment.
The 26 Amendments of the US Constitution
Amendment I (1791)
Congress shall construct no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridge the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the individuals peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II (1791)
A very well regulated militia, being critical to the security of a free state,
the right of the family to keep and carry arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III (1791)
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quarter in any house, minus the
consent of the owner, nor in time of period of war, but in a behaviour to be prescribed
by law.
Amendment IV (1791)
The right of the folks to be secure contained by their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and conspicuously describing the place to be searched, and the
folks or things to be seized.
Amendment V (1791)
No person shall be held to answer for a funds, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except surrounded by
cases arising in the park or naval forces, or in the militia, when within
actual service in time of time of war or public danger; nor shall any party be
subject for the same offense to be twice put contained by jeopardy of life or appendage;
nor shall be compelled in any criminal baggage to be a witness against himself,
nor be deprived of life, free will, or property, without due process of canon;
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without a moment ago
compensation.
Amendment VI (1791)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accuse shall enjoy the right to a speedy
and public trial, by an fair jury of the state and district wherein
the crime shall have be committed, which district shall have be
previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the quality and cause
of the arraignment; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to hold
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses surrounded by his favor, and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII (1791)
In suits at adjectives law, where on earth the value contained by controversy shall exceed twenty
dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried
by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined surrounded by any court of the United States,
than according to the rules of the common decree.
Amendment VIII (1791)
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX (1791)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of unshakable rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X (1791)
The powers not delegate to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or
to the people.
Amendment XI (1798)
The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to
any suit contained by law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the
United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of
any foreign state.
Amendment XII (1804)
The elector shall meet surrounded by their respective states and vote by ballot for
President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an
inhabitant of equal state with themselves; they shall first name in their
ballot the person voted for as President, and within distinct ballots the
character voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct list of
all folks voted for as President, and of all folks voted for as Vice-
President, and of the number of votes for each, which list they shall sign
and certify, and transmit sealed to the form of the government of the
United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of
the Senate shall, surrounded by the presence of the Senate and House of
Representatives, open adjectives the certificates and the votes shall next be
counted;--the person have the greatest number of votes for President,
shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of
elector appointed; and if no person hold such majority, then from the
people having the greatest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those
voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose
hastily, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the
votes shall be taken by states, the representation from respectively state having
one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a applicant or members
from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of adjectives the states shall be
necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose
a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, until that time
the fourth day of March subsequent following, then the Vice-President shall stroke
as President, as in the armour of the death or other constitutional
disability of the President. The being having the greatest number of votes
as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a
majority of the total number of electors appointed, and if no creature have a
majority, later from the two highest numbers on the roll, the Senate shall
choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-
thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the integral number
shall be necessary to a choice. But no entity constitutionally ineligible
to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of
the United States.
Amendment XIII (1865)
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the carnival shall have be duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall own power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.
Amendment XIV (1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalize in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and
of the state wherein they reside. No state shall trade name or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunity of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any state deprive any person of energy, liberty, or
property, short due process of law; nor deny to any personage within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states
according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of folks
in respectively state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at
any see for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of
the United States, Representatives contained by Congress, the executive and judicial
officers of a state, or the member of the legislature thereof, is denied
to any of the male inhabitants of such state, man twenty-one years of age,
and citizens of the United States, or in any channel abridged, except for
association in defiance, or other crime, the basis of representation
therein shall be reduced within the proportion which the number of such male
citizens shall accept to the whole number of masculine citizens twenty-one years
of age in such state.
Section 3. No human being shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
constituent of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or
military, below the United States, or under any state, who, have
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the
United States, or as a associate of any state legislature, or as an executive
or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United
States, shall have unavailable in insurrection or mutiny against the same,
or given aid or comfort to the enemy thereof. But Congress may by a vote
of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The authenticity of the public debt of the United States, authorized
by law, including debts incurred for return of pensions and bounties for
services contained by suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be question.
But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or
must incurred in aid of insurrection or unrest against the United
States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but adjectives
such debts, obligations and claims shall be held dishonest and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall hold power to enforce, by appropriate
legislation, the provisions of this article.
Amendment XV (1870)
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on narrative of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall own power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
Amendment XVI (1913)
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from
doesn`t matter what source derived, without apportionment among the several states,
and minus regard to any ballot of enumeration.
Amendment XVII (1913)
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each
state, elected by the population thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall
hold one vote. The electors contained by each state shall own the qualifications
requisite for elector of the most numerous branch of the state
legislatures.
When vacancies develop in the representation of any state contained by the Senate, the
executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to teem
such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the
executive thereof to make acting appointments until the people steep the
vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the see or term
of any Senator chosen until that time it becomes valid as fragment of the Constitution.
Amendment XVIII (1919)
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the
manufacture, mart, or transportation of intoxicating liquors inwardly, the
importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States
and all realm subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes
is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power
to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall hold been
ratify as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the
several states, as provided contained by the Constitution, within seven years from
the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.
Amendment XIX (1920)
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
condensed by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Congress shall own power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.
Amendment XX (1933)
Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall closing at noon
on the 20th daytime of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives
at midday on the 3d day of January, of the years contained by which such terms would
own ended if this article have not been ratify; and the terms of their
successors shall after begin.
Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at smallest once in every year, and
such date shall begin at lunchtime on the 3d day of January, unless they
shall by directive appoint a different day.
Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the germ of the term of the
President, the President elect shall enjoy died, the Vice President elect
shall become President. If a President shall not have be chosen before
the time fixed for the setting up of his term, or if the President elect
shall hold failed to qualify, consequently the Vice President elect shall act as
President until a President shall hold qualified; and the Congress may by
law provide for the crust wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice
President elect shall have qualified, declare who shall then feat as
President, or the manner surrounded by which one who is to act shall be select, and
such person shall stroke accordingly until a President or Vice President shall
hold qualified.
Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the skin of the death of any
of the people from whom the House of Representatives may choose a
President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and
for the defence of the death of any of the people from whom the Senate may
choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved
upon them.
Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall filch effect on the 15th day of October
following the ratification of this article.
Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall enjoy been
ratify as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-
fourths of the several states inside seven years from the date of its
submission.
Amendment XXI (1933)
Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the
United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or
possession of the United States for distribution or use therein of intoxicating
liquors, surrounded by violation of the law thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have be
ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions within the several
states, as provided in the Constitution, inside seven years from the date
of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.
Amendment XXII (1951)
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the organization of the President more
than twice, and no person who have held the office of President, or acted as
President, for more than two years of a permanent status to which some other person be
elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than
once. But this article shall not apply to any character holding the office of
President when this article be proposed by the Congress, and shall not
prevent any person who may be holding the department of President, or acting as
President, during the term inside which this article becomes operative from
holding the bureau of President or acting as President during the remainder
of such term.
Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall own been
ratify as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-
fourths of the several states inwardly seven years from the date of its
submission to the states by the Congress.
Amendment XXIII (1961)
Section 1. The District constituting the seat of establishment of the United
States shall appoint in such posture as the Congress may direct:
A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the intact
number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District
would be entitled if it be a state, but in no event more than the most minuscule
populous state; they shall be in insertion to those appointed by the states,
but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President
and Vice President, to be elector appointed by a state; and they shall
meet contained by the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth
article of amendment.
Section 2. The Congress shall enjoy power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
Amendment XXIV (1964)
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any
primary or other see for President or Vice President, for electors for
President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative contained by Congress,
shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by grounds
of failure to pay packet any poll tax or other toll.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
Amendment XXV (1967)
Section 1. In skin of the removal of the President from office or of his
extermination or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Section 2. Whenever there is a see in the department of the Vice President,
the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take organization upon
confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of
the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written
declaration that he is not sufficiently expert to discharge the powers and duties of his
office, and until he transmits to them a written statement to the
contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President
as Acting President.
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the
principal officer of the executive departments or of such other body as
Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the
Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written
testimonial that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties
of his organization, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and
duties of the department as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of
the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written
declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties
of his bureau unless the Vice President and a majority of either the
principal officer of the executive department or of such other body as
Congress may by law provide, transmit in four days to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their
written declaration that the President is incompetent to discharge the powers
and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall wish the issue,
assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose save in session. If
the Congress, inside twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written
avowal, or, if Congress is not in session, inside twenty-one days
after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of
both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties
of his department, the Vice President shall continue to discharge like peas in a pod as
Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and
duties of his office.
Amendment XXVI (1971)
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of
age or elder, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States
or any state on vindication of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
Is my parking fine legal?
I come home from 10 days away to find a fixed penalty spy on my windscreen for a one day short-term restriction that had be in place.Through my letterbox be a letter from York council giving with the sole purpose 7 days warning of the restriction.I do not consistency this is fair.Is it lawful?Answers: just prove to them you be away..e.g. credit card bill etc or if you booked a flight even better.. contest it.
i thought you had to afford 14 days notice... obtain off to ya local citizens proposal beaurnu
motorists get stung for everything today, petrol , high insurance etc. .getting feed up of it
It's a traffic fine. Go to court and tell your story. The consider might let you stale.
You'll have to check your local spy laws to find out if it's in actual fact legal.
your lucky they didnt tow it and crush it, same happen to a girl on tv the other night and the crushed her saloon.
If you can prove you were away for the spell then they own to revoke the ticket
Nope
It is legal, they enjoy complied by giving you seven days notice of the interim restricition. They cannot be expected to know you were away on holiday.
However contest the ticket on that font, as long as you can prove you were away and could not enjoy recieved the notice admonition then i cannot see why they would require you to still settle the fine as you had a okay excuse for ignoring the restriction and departing your vehicle there not knowing in the order of it.
But you may have to budge to court to argue this.
yes, as long as they have given you 48 hours interest of the restriction
Who gets the money?
if you earnings a traffic ticket or other fine where does the money budge.is it divided out among orginizations in the city or what.my friend and i be having a discussion.thankfulnessAnswers: It goes to the treasurer of the city, county, or state that issued it.
Normally this money go to pay for the cop who wrote it.
The money is allocated according to the law of the authority governing the law enforcement agency. Usually, it go into an operating fund or to address the actual expenses of enforcement by the agency which apprehended the person assessed the fine.
More Questions and Answers:
[1675] - [1653] - [2226] - [714] - [1520] - [2388] - [2425] - [2112] - [2167] - [1604] - [1708] - [1215] - [1735] - [1746] - [1132] - [1469] - [300] - [1367] - [1205] - [450]
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question: