Your question is vague and it would be hard to give you an apt response, if you rephrase it with more clarity I’ll get back to you.
I was not talking about case law. I was talking about text. But if you want my thoughts on prior precedents let me know which ones.
Who do you think called for and commissioned the Constitutional Convention? Who do you think proposes amendments under Article V? Pick up a book.
In this thread people who haven’t read one CJ Roberts opinion in its entirety. That fault lies square only Congress and ourselves. The role of the judiciary is not the draft bill or pen amendments to the Constitution. It is to decide cases based on the law Congress made.
That kind of regulation wouldn’t even survive a 9th Circuit en banc. Existing law governing industry is not “supporting precedent” to force private citizens to waive one right just to enjoy another in their own home.
mandatory storage safety with inspections
Here in the U.S. our Constitution prohibits the government from performing searches of people’s homes with first having probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and a warrant to search their home that has been signed by a judge. Const. Amend. IV.
Congress is the combination of the House of Representatives and the Senate. America has a bicameral legislature. (Congress=House of Reps + Senate)
Because this passed the Senate in Feb and the House recently it is correct to say that this bill has passed Congress.
9.42(2)(B)'s last word “and” makes it clear to satisfy the statue one must:
-Satisfy 9.41(1);
-Satisfy either 9.41(2)(A) OR 9.41(2)(B); AND
-Satisfy either 9.41(3)(A) OR 9.41(3)(B).
That reading effectively reads the final requirement out of the text or presumes some extreme fact pattern that was not mentioned.
No problem. To add on being able to identify the way others view matters and the rational they employed to justify their actions allows us to identify logical reasons from their perspective for them to change their opinions.
On point A, I suspect he self-radicalized at first and then entered his own bubble where he further leaned more into radicalization.
On point B, I believe it does. It doesn’t matter what the negative label is; viewing individuals as the caricatures that float in our minds when we hear words like “tankie” or other words that serve only, for us, to brand individuals as part of a incorrect collective encourages us to make these same un-empathic mistakes.
We shouldn’t like many of these people we brand as things like “Tankie”; but we should understand why they feel the ways they do.
why would a leftist who hates fascism go join the Russian army?
Reminder that you are in a bubble. Do not shape your perception of reality based on what you see on this website. It is populated by posts from a relatively small amount of people who lean in the same political direction on many issues.
Russia has been calling the Ukrainians Nazis for years. Putin pointed at AZOV and painted all of the nation in the same broad brush. De-nazification is how Putin labeled his actions. Fascism and Nazism are words that have lost all meaning at this point. The muddling and devaluation of those words is leading our world on a path to authoritarianism.
When you view the matter from the lens adulterated by different propaganda the answer becomes obvious. To him the question was probably “How could a leftist not flee his capitalist homeland and father who is complicit to the oppression of the people’s cause to join the successor of the USSR in their fight to restore the former Union’s territory and drive the ‘nazis’ out of it.”
The federal rule of procedure don’t allow such broad sweeping remedies that apply upon parties not before the courts.
There is irony in making someone with your name explain themselves
America and Americans broadly do not respect “international law” as an idea. We don’t vote for representatives in a UN House of Reps or UN Senate. And if we did why would we wish to be beholden to a majority rules vote when that majority combined might be inferior militarily.
America tolerates international law when it doesn’t interfere with our course.
The idea of a “one world government” is treated as a fringe tin hat conspiracy theory nonsense that no one is advocating for.
Every year about 8,000 people file their cases for cert at the Supreme Court. Each year they grant cert on about 80. Roughly 1/1000 odds. Those about 8,000 cases include cases that have also previously filed in past years without cert.
Amicus briefs are not uncommon. They often don’t grant cert when there are no novel legal questions. The Supreme Court simply doesn’t not have the ability to hear every appeal. Them not granting cert in any case should not be taken as a dispositive.
In 21/50 you need a license.
The real question is why the hell is a governor engaging in international trade or diplomacy? Art. 1 Sec 8.
Well said. A sober look at the lives of these people often reveals a sad truth.
9/10 sovereign citizens are victims. 1/10 are charlatans selling a fiction to those in dire need of a way out of legal trouble.
I would challenge you to listen to the other entirely if
Yeah that doesn’t solve the issue of planting a bomb, though.
“Your honor my client was only engaged in economic terrorism” is not a good excuse.
Well it was Madison if you want to know who held the quill, but upon the consent and order of the Confederation Congress which our current Congress acts in the continuity of. See Art. XI Clause I (proclaiming the debts of the Confederation’s Congress maybe held just as valid under the Constitution’s Congress).