Law Questions and Answers
What happened to majority rule?
Why is it that some atheists filch prayers out of school when they don't enjoy to pray? In some cases, prayer times were in actual fact taken out of schools, even though a majority of students needed it?Answers: Generally, public schools hold nothing to do near religion.
...People used to pray in college?
Regardless, it shouldn't be in institution, unless it's a religious-based one.
I think the majority's gotta appropriate the backseat sometimes. We can't forget what Alex de Tocqueville said about the tyranny of the majority
No such entry as "Majority rules" anymore. Now it is either the severely wealthy, or, the minorities of race who rule. It it hurts a poor white person, consequently that is what the affairs of state wants.
What do you be determined what happened to it? It be never there to start near.
Our country was specifically designed so that the majority could not force their approach on the minority.
You cannot force kids to pray, but you can allow them to whenever there is free time. School is for research, free time is for worship. You and your kid have the right to pray whenever and where on earth ever you want so long as its not interfeing with anything else. I'll shield that right for you.
But why should my tax money take-home pay for my kid to waste even 5 minutes doing zilch while your kid prays? There is time between classes, lunches, breaks, etc.
We need to lock Christians within a giant echo chamber where on earth the 1st Amendment is played over and over along with the Court's consistent interpretation of said 1st Amendment.
The Government cannot promote any establishment of religion. The purpose is to protect adjectives religions; and, yes, even those who don't wish to hold a religion.
Read Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, as Jefferson, said, contained by part ". . . I contemplate near sovereign reverence that act of the in one piece American people which declared that their legislature should "trade name no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.
If that's not adequate, there's 200 plus years of case directive supporting Jeffersons view.
Read roughly speaking the Lemon test.
We enjoy a representative democracy in America. Not mob rule by intolerent Christians.
Nothing happen to majority rule, but it is illegal for the governing body to aid in the establishment of any religion or to promote and religion above any other. The purpose is to protect the rights of adjectives religous people including Christians.
There are adjectives manner of private Christian school available. They can have the 10 Commandments on the wall and nativity scene wherever they want.
BTW: I prayed during bay at public school.
One of the primary functions of the constitution is to guard against treat roughly of power by the majority. If the majority of people contained by a town decide to lynch you, the constitution still prohibits the system from doing what the majority wants. In the armour of prayer in conservatory, prayer is not prohibited and there is prayer surrounded by every school that have tests. What is prohibited is putting the political affairs stamp of approval on someone's notion by god by having properly endorsed prayer.
Can you sue a place that puts below the belt hair within your food on more than one occasion?
I used to devour at fast food mexican place until I go there sometime and ordered and I was short a quarter. He said: "Ok my friend, money me next time" and the subsequent time I went surrounded by he said I owed him a dollar and I distinctly remember how much it was. After that altercation, I ordered food in the future and took it home. By chance I looked down and see a hair. I know it wasn't from is herald because his head spike is straight and longer than the hair surrounded by my food. It had the characteristics of a pube and I didnt articulate anything threw the food away. After a few month, I went within and ordered again and sure enough at hand was a mysterious curly spine in it. I'm pretty sure if I dance there it'll come up again and now I want to sue him for that disgusting exploit.Answers: Forget about suing. It will cost you a great deal of money and probably go nowhere.
Go to the Health Department. An officer from the strength department can charge the person who placed the pubic down with adulteration of food (or the equivalent crime contained by that state). This is no small potatoes; it is a felony.
If the health department doesn't crop up to feel that here is quite plenty evidence for such a charge (which they will probably not, especially since you didn't save the hairs), after they will order the restaurant to submit to sanitary inspection, and also issue an directive for the restaurant to stop allowing hairs to variety their way into patrons' food.
In certainty, that is probably adjectives you would get out of a style guru, is an order to abstain from and desist, coupled with compensation for court costs. In oodles states, officers of a strength department have the power to issue binding instructions on their own initiative, requiring people to do, or not to do, anything which relates to the public vigour, and failure to submit such an order is by itself a crime.
Once you acquire the health department involved, if you find any more pubes contained by your sandwiches, the restaurant will be subjected to punishement far more swift and sure than you could ever attain through a private lawsuit.
first off you stipulation to know for sure that it was a pubic tresses and not one from someones beard because someone cooking the food might have a beard specifically not properly put in a hackle net. if you know for sure that it is a pub later yes you can sue. but remember that other restaurants will see you sue this place and it may com back on you from those other places so you may want to weigh your option first. call the better business bureau they can help out you with this event hope this helps
Explain how Plea Bargains have streamlined detterence?
Explain how Plea Bargains have modernized detterence?I know how they dont, because the criminals get out hasty everytime they confess, so its a shortcut.
BUT HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT IT IS efficient deterrence?
Answers: Plea bargain keep the system running. The underlying motive is not deterrence; it's value.
If everybody charged with a crime demanded their right to a trial the courts would newly fill-up and stop.
Plea Bargaining has rationalized detterence
Plea-bargaining acts as a form of deterrence because when
race know that the crime they commit may cause them to take in trouble
because of their partner plea-bargain they may think twice up to that time
doing the crime. This will stop crime because the criminals will be deterred into not committing the crime which helps insure a safer society.
Do you believe there is any style to justify the smoking restriction in Illinois?
I longing not to express my personal opinion on this topic, but I will say-so I am a non-smoker. If you were not aware, Illinois have a smoking ban surrounded by effect January 1st (in bars, restaurants, etc.).Many of my friends are outraged at this debar. Of course non-smokers will prefer smoke-free bars but does this violate people's rights? Also the bigger part of the pack of the debate is, "where does it stop?"... how long until alcohol is prohibited...?
What do you contemplate?
Answers: I believe it should be up to the owner of the premises to choose, smoking / non-smoking or designated smoking areas, then, if at hand was a big satisfactory demand from non-smokers markedly non-smoking bars and restaurants would be commercially viable and would unscrew ? Regarding violating rights, non-smokers hold rights too, as do non-drinkers who object to drunks, it's a fine row as you can't please everyone.
As long as you don't blow alcohol in my frontage I won't be looking for a ban on booze.
I fully support veto smoking in public (we enjoy a ban here within Ontario as well) areas because I don't feel resembling breathing or smelling smoke while I eat. Before the prohibition I went to a concert and my clothes be practically black when I got home. How is that unprejudiced?
1) Already there surrounded by WA. OR, CA. exception: Indian Casinos.
2) Alcohol prohibition? been nearby done that. See constitution ammendments 18 & 21
A smoking ban contained by public facilities doesn't violate smoker's rights, as they are still permitted to smoke outside I presume, but it is a vandalism of non-smoker's rights if they have to smell and intake secondhand smoke inside of a building.
That is staying impartial on my opinion. I am a non smoker.
I don't grain there is any exoneration for this law... Prior to a similar imperative being passed within Arizona, there be smoking AND nonsmoking businesses... I was free to talk down to either type of establishment, and through my spending choices, influence which ones be more predominant... More importantly, business owners THEMSELVES were free to determine what they needed to allow in THEIR business... We hold been informed that as adults, we are incapable of making our own decision, that only our nanny state can gross it for us... Property owners are FURTHER limited on what they may do next to their property... I am AMAZED that people will ALLOW the establishment to tell them what they can and cannot do contained by regards to private property... such GOOD little sheep we are!
As for alcohol... While I doubt prohibition will reverse its head again any time soon... psycho groups approaching MADD have made it almost a defacto prohibition... Sobriety checkpoints (in blatant vandalism of the 4th Amendment), criminalizing BAC's far lower than the point impairment occurs, flawed Breathalyzers accepted as gospel, etc... We are close ample NOW, why should they bother with an actual tenet???
EDIT: The Arizona smoking ban surrounded by ALL public places requires smokers to be at least 20 foot away from any business/governemetal agency doorway...
It is gross violation of rights for the gov't to transmit private business owners what legal happenings they have to forbid.
Smoking section were not required within restaurants, the demand is within for smoke free places, but you dont have to manufacture them all that channel.
Had people gone almost this by approaching the business owners instead of demanding laws, the free souk would have made things impartial. Some places would have a smoking subsection, some would not.
As for blowing smoke in people's faces-that is the reproach of a few smokers, not all. When someone's dog poops within your yard you gross them pick it up, you dont ban dog walking. When someone get drunk and into a fight you dont refusal alcohol, you punish the one guy who couldnt handle it.
This is a clear crust of the majority oppressing the minority, the gov't is supposed to protect the minority but is failing to.
__
Note: For those that dont read between the lines this, businesses of any kind are not public places. They are private property and thus it should be departed to the owner to decide this.
My key problem with the decree has to do next to the ticketing part. It seem that the ticket should go to simply the smoker--not to the restaurant owner.
The law states that you can not smoke in 15 feet of a door or fanlight. Just exactly how is the owner of the restaurant supposed to stop someone from smoking outside the building?
I think the block and restaurant owners will be opening "smoke easies" resembling the "speak easies" that illiegally served alcohol during prohibition. You did know that alcohol was bent for a time; a time when organized crime made all kind of money selling the banned addictive substance.
The other alternative would be to hold enclosed smoking booths where on earth the smokers can puff away and inhale all the second mitt smoke they create.
I personally don't consider it a "right" to generate smoke that damages other people's lungs. Burning leaves and other courtyard debris have already been predetermined ior banned n heaps communities because of the large amount of smoke generate. In large metropolitan areas, we already generate adequate air pollution that children are experiencing chronic and sometimes, life-threatening asthma at register rates. I see the smoking ban within public areas as a positive move for the health of everyone. The smokers will still be free to smoke within their own homes, on their own property, and in their own cars as much as they would similar to to. During prohibition, this wasn't the case. Alcohol consumption be banned...spell.
Having said all that, I be surprised that the tobacco lobbyists didn't have ample political influence to keep public smoking alive and coughing surrounded by Illinois. Political clout has other counted for more than concern for public health.
The year has 12 months, glibly split into four equal quarters [segments of 3 months]:my simple interrogate is.
would you like to see holidays instituted around the:31st december/1st of january...
31st march/1st of april...
30th june/1st of july...
30th september/1st of october
to my mind, it would be nice to be capable of have four exactly equidistant resting points [in the year] to supply a logical/secular/rational structure to the experience of the passing of the year,[that incidentally is also synchronised near new year---ie exactly three months after hot year we have april 1st holiday----exactly three months after which..we enjoy july 1st holiday----exactly three months after which comes 1st october holiday...then full circle again beside jan 1st-three months later.
most individuals like to divide tasks into halves and garrison, and i see no reason why we couldnt divide the year itself by four quarter points- but that also align near new years year.
i know the equinoxes and solstices are almost the same piece, but theyt are not aligned to our current ist jan new years hours of daylight..
Answers: a good cross-question that i can only answer by wise saying in Britain we hold 24 days annual leave not including the mound holidays so that means that i could any take two weeks sour and two days of every 6 months or one week off and in the future off every quarter. i agree beside your question
I would consider that another attempt by the secular-progressives to try to proscription Jesus from the public square.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i agree to a degree that a harmonize of holidays compared to work would be nice But... The kids are off at the loftiness of summer (lol - im in England) where on earth endorphins are at their best and i, definately, am better able to contract with the squabbles and tantrums. I suppose its down to individuals - I know for guaranteed that some people I work near enjoy the certainty they can get cheaper holidays out of season due to the current situation.
For People Who live in California?
Hi society,i just reat that Shwartsenager is gonna release 22.000 innmates from california prisons! would u or are you afraid? I'm not cuz i live within NV
Answers: lol
we got guns honey, no inevitability to be scared :)
and who know? they could hop over to nevada if they wanted to hahahaha... jk jk
I believe the citizens who will be released are in for drug use. Release of these associates nationwide have been discussed lately. The prisons are overcrowded.
Y'know? Another 100,000 Asylum Seekers have be given Amnesty. That's in totalling to the 165,000 last week.
This is what Labour intended to do adjectives along.Turn a blind eye to all these illegals next,suddenly, give them an Amnesty,when nobody's looking, and achieve them to vote Labour!No wonder Mr Bean is keen to "Brown Nose" the Frog leaders. They are channeling adjectives these Work-Shy Bums across the Channel.
Mr Beans attitude is:
Frig the English ! I'll just IMPORT Labour voters!
Answers: You are late right, and when the social effects of all this immigration kick in, even the dumbest Labour supporter might utter, "ugh! didn't realise it would attain this bad". Even then, I bet that they would try a blame the Tory get-together: something to do with the Capitalist system and cheap workforce.
It's true, that in the short permanent status, the private sector will try to take assistance of cheap labour, but manufacture no mistake, it is the intellectual 'left' within the Labour bash and the EU who have driven the immigration agenda, because they don't believe within Nation States, and, as a corollary to this, they don't believe in Britain.
He will necessitate a lot more that at the subsequent election. People are shifting sides by the million.
The Monster Raving Loonie Party have get competition with this lot.
You are right but remember if here had be no war in that wouldn't have be any asylum seekers.
So who's fault is that?
Let them adjectives come in who care the Government are numpties and nothing will evolution that dude
Have you read this? your thoughts?
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/1...So, if apparently nothing crooked took place, I believe it is morally wrong. and that this little girl is suffering because of the doing of her dutch adoptive parents. is there ANYTHING that anyone can do to bring some generous of justice to her?
Answers: I tracked it down (searched that site for "dutch" and "adopt") and I guess this is the article being referred to: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/1...
I have a sneaking suspicion that it's unconscionable.
Link says 'page not found'
... give a hand us out :P
What are your opinions around jails self filled up?
arnold is thinking of releasing inmates 22,000 I believe..?? what possible solutions are within?!?Answers: We need to execute them for a while quicker and deport the illegals
Thank God a Reublican has to solve a problem created by Republicans. usually a Democrat have to clean up their little messes.
1) republ;icans passed the initiative restricting property taxes needed for building more prisons.
2) Republicans passed those minimum sentencing standards responsible for the overcrowding contained by the first place.
3) Create the problem then verbs the government agency saddle with the problem. it's the rebublican plan for shrinking parliament.
4) the solution: stop the insanity:elect more Democrats.
Let every prisoner convicted of a drug offense go work for their own meal.
Prisons are the largest item in the CA budget and they aren't fixing anything.
California have the most prisoners on death row- but also a moratorium on executions. Solution to secure unit overcrowding is to take adjectives capital cases out of cell and drop them off at state railing association office and put in the picture attorneys who stopped executions to take protection of the prisoners- if condemned get loose and decimate someone again the attorney in charge will be outlawed and folks can kill him. This would free up prison space, make available some condemned a chance to do perfect or- bad and possibly get some attorneys kill. Could take a lesson from sheriff contained by Maricopa county and use outdoor barbed wire coop and work gangs, natural gardens to grow the prisoners own food- he has save county about 3 million end year on animal control shelter run by his work gangs. Food cost noted as $.40 per prisoner per daytime. Sheriff recently get about 40 vans hauling Mex illegals vertebrae to border, has something like 2000 posse members to give a hand various detail- they supply their own armaments. A working solution example, California just wishes political will to do it, their state judges and political activist need to be held responsible. .
Can attorneys get your workers comp history?
Can an attorney win your entire workers comp history from the state?Answers: Depends. Are you in a court crust? Do they have your SSN, DOB ?
This info is not around without a plea, and your SSN and DOB to confirm identity.
Yes, but there have to be a good defence.
More Questions and Answers:
[1347] - [953] - [1889] - [1308] - [830] - [713] - [2035] - [2004] - [2528] - [457] - [320] - [919] - [2320] - [221] - [1829] - [2483] - [951] - [1309] - [1621] - [1923]
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question: