Law Questions and Answers

When is OK for a President to ignore our constitution and re-write our law to suit his or hers own agenda?

should Congress and the Senate be held accountable when a President does this?
Answers: As when Lincoln suspended Habius Corpus during the War between the States?

The Short Answer is NEVER.
Yes Congress (The Senate is piece of Congress, along with the House of Representatives) should be held adjectives, as only the Congress can remove a sitting President through impeachment (excepting a president can be removed during the regular see cycle).
But seeing as Congress in never held adjectives for any of their other failures, how do you really expect Congress to be held adjectives for failure to impeach?
The president can't do that.

The presidency is the Executive Branch not the Legislative Branch.

Google US Government checks and balance.
Part 1 of your question: When hell freezes over.
Part 2 of your grill: Yes, they SHOULD, but they don't because they're all weasles. (except Ron Paul who ALWAYS votes along Constitutional lines)
When Hell freezes over. RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT Hope for America.
It's never OK, and it can't be done.

Also, the President does not re-write law, the Congress does.

The check on the President violating the Constitution is the Judiciary, not the Congress.

Richard
Part 1: No it is not OK and have never been done because the President cannot re-write a ruling, all he can do is sign or veto a ruling passed by congress.

Part 2: Since part 1 cannot take place, part 2 cannot start either.
Never OK to discount it, however, practically speaking, it may be in the best interest of our country for him to do so on experience.

For example, if the courts or legislature ignore or violate the constitution, he may be erudite to make a counter move.

Think just about these: NY state passed a law allowing laying a bet casinos to remain open even though they violate the state constitution; The US Supreme Court fixed to "legalize" abortion based on a right to privacy that is to say not found in the constitution.

I know I enjoy not given you a specific for-instance, but hopefully the above will shed some light on why we ought to own law surrounded by the first place.
Judging by past history, I'd say-so anytime starting from the beginning of FDR's second residence.

If a law is totally unmerited how does the general public stir about?

How do we (the common public) go in the order of getting laws changed? I am nurture up with hearing/seeing adjectives non-custodial parents getting screwed. I see/read all these posts where on earth the custodial parent is always wanting more and more and more. Should we be concerned give or take a few this issue? If this continues then non-custodial parents are NOT going to be capable of even buy food, much less enjoy a relationship. The laws and guidelines should be both FAIR AND ENFORCED. So how does this process work? What can we do to rework it???

I am a woman who raised 4 children by myself, and singular received $205.00 per month. So I am seeing this from both sides.
Answers: In an issue such as this, civil disobedience (one means of dealing next to unjust laws) would capture you nothing. It have to be done by your state legislature. In the mean time, reviewing bench rulings and exposing the most unjust of them to the standard public.

That being said, I wouldnt expect a groundswell of outrage on this issue.
Start by writing a dispatch to your representative (either congressman or MP depending on your country). Then look into organizations that share your view and become active. Organize ralleys and protests.

Good luck to you. Changing the directive is hard work!
The support guidelines are pretty much established and straight forward. It is few and far between that a court will deviate from the guidelines.

What I see is situations when a support order be created when the non-custodial was any unemployed or under-employed. Often this is done intentionally. When the non-custodial starts working again, they should recompense their fair share.

Your proposal is not event to anyone involved, particularly the children. In support cases the incomes of respectively party is normally far from equal. If the custodial makes far more than the non-custodial, they could bust the non-custodial (intentionally if they wished) by spending twice as much as the other person's income for expenses they would have to cover. Your proposal would also create a transcript keeping and oversight nightmare. How often would the expenses be reported to the court? What would start if the non-custodial challenges the expense? How would expenses be proven?
TRUST ME THERE ARE ALOT OF LAWS BEING REQUESTED, DROPPED AND TALKED ABOUT.

REMEMBER THERE ARE LOT OF PEOPLE WHO THINK JUST LIKE U ON THAT ONE BUT THERE ARE ALSO PEOPLE WHO THINK THE OPPOSITE

SO ITS NOT SO EASY.
My husband and I own two daughters of our own. He has a daughter from a previous relationship that lives next to her mother. He pays all their rent, their phone bill (he desires to be sure his daughter can get a hold of him long distance if needed) carry health, dental, and figment of the imagination insurance on the child, and sends the mother a check on the first of the month to aid with groceries. When his daughter requirements extra money for a school function or doesn`t matter what, he gladly works next to the mother to make sure she get it. I don't mind him paying this much for his daughter. She was his kid until that time I was his wife and back we had our children together.

I agree at hand are some situations where the custodial parent tries to "bleed dry" the noncustodial parent, but surrounded by a lot of cases I see noncustodial parents starting second family then getting foolish because they can't afford the new kids. My husband and I be careful to not own kids unless we knew we could afford them and he not own to decrease his support of the oldest child. Once you hold a kid, it's your job to run care of them. Unless a Noncustodial parent is doing everything they can to support their kid (including multiple job if necessary) then they involve not whine about the prerequisite that they brought upon themselves when they made the baby to switch on with.
The law do need to be changed, however it's a long road to bring in that happen. I've see non custodial parents go to send down for owing back support, and I've also see non custodial parents get away next to not paying their support.

My ex owes me over 16,000.00 in vertebrae support. All accumulated surrounded by a period of 4 years and he's never be to jail.

I know of someone else who be paying regularly, but was at the rear about 4000.00 who get picked up by the sheriff, at his job, and taken to incarcerate for having arrearages. Crazy, huh?
Again, I agree near you. I'm tired of seeing these control freak moms that want the moon from their ex. I'd like to see the child support system changed but not sure how to revise it to be fair to adjectives. I think the majority of moms do procure screwed...I was one of them and married to a non-custodial father who is and have been getting screwed for years. So I can see it from both sides too. I know that my husband's ex have been collected welfare and food stamps and have been unloading $2000 + each month contained by child support alone, not including spousal support for the last 4 years. She have been underneath investigation for welfare fraud but so far...she has however to be punished for it.

Is it illegal to live on your own at 16 years hoary ?

Answers: in england, no its not improper. you can move out at 16 if you want.
i'm gonna say no explanation i was out of the house at 17, but it also depends on ur law where u live?

and fyi: its extraordinarily hard to achieve a place of ur own at 16.
no unless ur doing the right thing and ur responsible adequate to pay bills and stuff
pls put in me
You need to first justifiably become an emancipated minor. An attorney can help you do that if you gratify the legal requirements.
Not within most states, but you have to budge through a court process can emancipation that give you rights. Its different in every state. you can ring the State Bar and ask for legal guidance for free in most states. However, its a physical bad notion in most circumstances, and expensive.
It is not, as long as you can show you can support yourself. There are a few endorsed hoops to jump through though or you would own a hard time renting a place or getting services close to power and water. Most states require you to be 18 to sign a trial contract for services.
No, but it is very firm to do. I would not suggest it, better stay at home and get your schooling and establish some credit before striking out on your own at that awfully young age.
Did it myself, but that be 30 years ago. Its called freedom.Be damn sure before you do it.
Depends on where on earth u live, but in most U.S. states its not unsanctioned, but you're parents are still legaly liable for any damages and such, and they can be sued for money damages. Best to be emancipated
no, i guess it depends on where you live. i've on my own since i be 16. but that was means of access in the 90's. its resembling you gotta be 18 to do everything. especially as for as apartments and houses, because you gotta be 18 to sign contracts.
No if u have ur parents authority
If your parents or guardian don't object and raison d`¨ştre you to live where they aspiration. It isn't strictly illegal. It is only just much easier if you are 'emancipated'. Which means you go to court and a judge declared that you are responsible for yourself. You as a minor (under 18) can't even attain an apartment because you can't sign a lease, and MANY other issues. Think Really hard almost this before you create any moves!
it depends on where you live. In the US law vary greatly from state to state. So surrounded by the US it is not illegal, but it can be extremely difficult. Because at 16 within most states, you are not able to enter into a contract until you make the state's legal age of consent which vary from 14 to 21 depending on the state.
This can include rental agreements, Agreements for services such as phone electricity and water, You may not know how to own a car, because of the registration.You may also be powerless to earn money from a job because of employment contracts. So put up beside what ever problems you have next to your parents for 2 more years and you will be much better off.

What is a good Christmas bequest for someone about to enter canon school?

My boyfriend is entering decree school surrounded by the spring. He is from Kenya, and comes from a family of diplomats and lawyer. He is also a dj, and interested in music. Anyone hold any good grant ideas?
Answers: A Black's Law Dictionary.
I'm surrounded by the same place as your boyfriend. I also start Law School within the spring.

The best gift you can impart is cold hard change or gift certificate to the Law School Book Store.
FANTASTIC answers. How about a gavel??

NJ just abolish the death cost . . . how many states will follow suit?

do you guess that they should? Why? Why not?
Answers: A few.
I think that instead of debating the demise penalty we should be working on raise kids that respect the law.

That you enjoy to take responsablity for your arrangements.

Example: Kids should be allow to make bombs contained by their bedrooms and parents not know it or do anything about it.
the majority of states enjoy not carried out any death sentances within decades

most of the rest are on hold awaiting a supreme court review next april

illinois does not take out death sentances any more after finding out going on for 15% are carried out on innocent (of murder) people

too doomed to failure bush refused to stay any of the 200 or so he kill when governor since it has since be found that at least 20 or 30 of them be also innocent

he was once caught on video bragging how he never spent more than five minutes looking over a case for review
Oh no, whats subsequent, you gonna stop torturing people,invading
soveriegn states & funding fascist dictatorships around the
world, jeezo you might even start individual nice to people
I assume a couple more blue states might follow suit (maybe NY?). I must be ignorant, I know the right is supposed to be adjectives for the death cost, and the left is adjectives against it, but I'm conservative and I could really care smaller quantity if capital punishment is allowed or not. My reasoning is usually as an alternative to property punishment, the sentence is life within prison. The net result is we are not going to hear from that personage again. Besides, I think a immediate death sentence is an trouble-free way to dodge upwards of 50 years contained by prison. I think 50 years within prison is the harsher sentence.

Maybe it's because I've spent too much time in NJ.
New Jersey did the right item and in the right mode. It instituted a year long study commission before taking up an abolition bill. Among the masses witnesses before the commission be families of murder victims who do not support the annihilation penalty. I enjoy given a link to the commission report, below.

You don't enjoy to sympathize with criminals or want them to avoid a vile punishment to ask if the death cost prevents or even reduces crime and to ruminate about the risks of executing innocent race. Your question is much too impressive to settle without thinking in the order of these.

125 people on demise 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 ethnic group.

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 contained by those that don’t.

We have a virtuous alternative. Life without parole is immediately on the books within 48 states. It means what it say. It is sure and swift and rarely appealed. Life minus parole is less expensive than the release penalty.

The demise penalty costs much more than time in prison, mostly because of the trial process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.

The destruction penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants near the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to general public with money. When is the closing time a wealthy personality was on extermination row, let alone executed?

The disappearance penalty doesn't necessarily give support to families of murder victims. Murder subject family member across the country argue that the drawn-out death cost process is painful for them and that enthusiasm without parole is an appropriate alternative.

Problems beside speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent people released from departure row had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent creature.
Very few. Its politically popular to have a destruction penalty.

Is it illigal to have a cut in a motor.?

State - California
reason - protection

plus your allowed to buy a stick if your 16+
Answers: Yes.
It's illegal if you are a beneath 18 to buy or carry ANY considerate of lethal guns.

For California knife tenet carrying a concealed knife it's risky. Having it near you contained by the car it can be call a "concealed carrying" as is done with guns.

Also every city within Cal can have local city law banning spread out or concealed carrying.

Besides...Do you know what happen to a guy that brings a blade to a fight?...He get SHOT!

Just avoid dangerous neighborhoods and paw out the wallet if you have to, it's not worth dieing for it.
Depends on local/state law and the length of the spear!

Is it true that the Mormon "Higher Authority" made back door loans to Hitler in the past World War Two?

Is it true? Can anybody confirm or deny this?
Answers: There is no proof that the Church of Latter Day Saints loaned any money to Hitler, however, there is correspondence between the two which lead to Adolf Hitler and Ava Braun baptized in the church by proxy.
wouldnt be a suprise

mormons enjoy been racist for most of thier existance

it wasnt untill 1978 that they allowed blacks into any positions of authority contained by the "church"
I have never hear of this before. I humane of wonder, why would Hitler be getting loans before WWII. Germany be turning into a super-power at that time. Of course, in the untimely 30's it was pretty rough. Also, what be in it for the Mormons. There would hold been lots of places to loan money inside the US that would enjoy been safer loans.

Until someone can show proof of this, I will give the name it a conspiracy theory.
No
Maybe you should ask Soros he work for the Nazis within WWII and gave the notice to Jewish families to board the release trains.
That was a resistance movement within Germany associated with a German Mormon name Helmuth Hübener. He headed a group of youth resisters. Before the time of war, church leaders told the Mormons to obey the German parliament. However, the Mormons already planned to support Hitler and were hoping to demonstrate similarities between Nazism and Mormonism. Hübener may own started out as a follower of Hitler, but when he came upon the truth, it changed him forever. Hübener have access to a radio that occasionally picked up the BBC news broadcasts contained by German from London, even though that was one of the stations the Nazis tried to block. As Hübener listen to the radio, he thought that the German “news reports sounded like plentifully of boasting, a lot of propaganda”. After he concluded that the British be the ones who were recitation the truth and he heard almost the treatment of Russian POWs, Hübener decided to fix together the resistance movement. Helmuth was an example of a youth who be encouraged to follow Hitler but discovered the truth and amalgamated the resistance.
Probably, they were racist until recently (after the civil-rights movement success). I guess their god be wrong before public feelings changed, probably bad for business.
You must be thinking of Joseph Kennedy. During the Spanish Civil War, Kennedy help persuade Roosevelt to hang on to America out of the conflict, emphasizing that the American Roman Catholic community be heavily Democratic and sympathized with the nationalist forces of Francisco Franco against the left-wing surrounded by Spain. he supported Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement. Shortly before the Nazi receiver bombing of British cities began surrounded by September 1940, Kennedy sought a personal meeting next to Hitler, again without State Department approval, "to bring nearly a better understanding between the United States and Germany." Kennedy argued strongly against giving aid to Britain.

The 1930's be the middle of the depression for the Latter-Day Saints. They has adjectives they could do to support the welfare of members and hold on to the church solvent.

In Tennesse, if your heat quits working, and you are 1/2 a month at the rear in your rent, is your manager.?

responsible for fixing your heat?

We thought so, but when we call our landlord, he said that within was zilch he could do because we were almost 2 weeks behind on the rent. Can he do this? I own two kids and we are freezing. What can I do legally because we can't afford the 600 dollars to enjoy it fixed.
Answers: Your Landlord is full of BS. The landlord is justifiably responsible for maintainence and repair of the house, to keep it contained by compliance with housing codes. This includes making sure the roast works in cold weather. Check next to the THDA or your local housing and development agency. It is considered slumlording and is evil for a landlord to punish you for mortal late next to the rent by withhold necessary repairs. If you are several months slowly he can have you evicted, but you own rights as a renter as well.
BTW, I am of late guessing, but do you rent from a family-owned reality company whose dub begins next to the letter "B" that buys distressed properties and rents them out next to no repair?

According to TN law
Maintenance by innkeeper.
(a) The landlord shall:
(1) Comply beside requirements of applicable building and housing codes materially affecting health and sanctuary;
(2) Make all repairs and do doesn`t matter what is necessary to put and maintain the premises in a fit and liveable in condition;
(3) Keep all adjectives areas of the premises in a verbs and safe condition; and
(4) In multi-unit complexes of four (4) or more unit, provide and maintain appropriate receptacle and conveniences for the removal of ashes, garbage, rubbish and other squander from common points of collection subject to § 66-28-401(3).
(b) If the duty imposed by subdivision (a)(1) is greater than any duty imposed by any other paragraph of this subsection, the landlord's duty shall be determined by quotation to subdivision (a)(1).
(c) The landlord and tenant may agree within writing that the tenant perform specified repairs, upholding tasks, alterations, and remodeling, but only if the transaction is enter into in honest faith and not for the purpose of evading the obligation of the landlord.
(d) The manager may not treat performance of the separate agreement described contained by subsection (c) as a condition to any obligation or recitation of any rental agreement.

Your landlord is explicitly violate (d)
You can afford internet, but you can't afford to keep a roof over your team leader or the heat going?

Why is it someone else's necessity? Why should it be?

Get a f-ing job, disconnect your internet, salary your rent, sell the computer, and quit making babies if you can't afford them.

If I be your landlord, I'd not one and only refuse to fix the warmth for you, I'd be on the phone with CPS.
I know that within some states you can call the Housing Commission and update them what is happening and they will force the owner to any fix of replace the heater. If he refuse they will fine him every day it is not done.
Here contained by Az I am not sure what laws here are that govern this situation. As long as there are children dying out due to lack of warmness, he has to fix the warmness, since you are catching up in your rent he should not own a problem with this.
Call you local Police Department they may know how to get you some temp. lend a hand also.
Hope this helps.

Merry Christmas to you and Your line...
Angell
I think he is right but at like time he should be behave like a human anyone.

What is the benefit of filing for lawful seperation?

And do you have to do that or can you run straight to the divorce?
Answers: In addition to the matter listed within the first answer, it protects your assets from claims against the ex-spouse. At the date of separation, the Court or the parties divide adjectives their assets and liabilities. If you've reach an agreement, you do want it formalized by the court. Suppose your ex is in an automobile quirk and it is entirely his/her fault and some innocent bash is seriously injured. Without a divorce or legal separation, the injured deputation can go after assets of the wedding. With a legal separation, singular the assets of the party at mistake can be in jeopardy. Also, as the first answerer said, it is not critical before a divorce to catch a separation. However, a formal separation also protects you from new debts incurred by your ex. Frankly, a legally recognized separation is exactly like a divorce except neither gathering can get remarried.
you can turn straight for divorce if you are sure you want this. the purpose of a legal seperation is to bequeath you rights while the devorce is going thru.who pays the bills, who gets the kids, where on earth each of you live etc.

Is it legal to video someone within a public in the state of California and is it admissable surrounded by court?

I want to video a father's behaviour towards his daughter and his ex everytime he arrives contained by a public carpark to pick up his 3 year old daughter. But is it court in California? I want to bring back on film the reaction of the daughter when she see's her dad and the reaction of the little girl when she see's her mum a week following in duplicate resturant carpark - its with a belief to getting full child custody. The child's father's family approached the child's mother and said the mother wishes to get her newborn out of the father's hands so we want to return with evidence for family court. Also are here any groups or organizations that can pass factual proposal about what the mother should do to prove her crust. His family alerted the mother but don't want to be involved as they are too startled of the baby's dad. So its the mother's word against the father's and as of now they both hold 50-50 custody
Answers: I don't know of anything which would prevent video of anything which happens within public, nor (if the person to took the video is available to testify) to admit it in court. However, any record of any confidential conversation (i.e., audio) would be illegal and inadmissible. It is probable that any conversation loud satisfactory to be recorded underneath these circumstances would not be confidential, but if all you inevitability is the video, you might want to make sure that nearby is no audio to confuse things.
yes and yes

it is the foundation of adjectives undercover operations
Anything shot surrounded by public is open for anyone to see. What someone does surrounded by the middle of a public park can be seen by anyone. Tape away.

The single thing that wouldn't be endorsed would be shooting things in public that are not in general viewable by the public, such as intentionally attempting to shoot up someone's skirt, etc.
Anything that happens surrounded by public can be legally tape. The tape is admissable within court.

Richard
I don't think within are any privacy rights anymore; it comes under homeland protection.

More Questions and Answers:
[2417] - [2126] - [419] - [1725] - [1519] - [867] - [2544] - [2174] - [2280] - [2113] - [2306] - [1610] - [367] - [1368] - [719] - [1424] - [2287] - [539] - [1045] - [1036]

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

Answer question: