it’s only contempt, from my understanding of law it’s not uncommon for contempt of court, and inter court violations to be anywhere from like 2 weeks of jail time, to a few months.
Iranian elections are generally considered fair, although the candidates must be approved by the Supreme Leader, and wield very limited power, so it almost doesn’t matter if the elections are rigged or not.
If the Reformist candidate wins, it would be the first time that the president and Ayatollah are not in lock step. It could be interesting.
Of course. Iran is more like a monarchy. The king is still the king, but if the people are unhappy enough, the king might be compelled to give up influence to parliament.
Not a perfect analogy by any means, but I think it helps.
AI can be very useful, the problem here is humans trusting it to be accurate all the time.
In this case it should be used to narrow down results, but even then the police need to do their job. They need to do an actual investigation to gather evidence that they have the right person before even attempting to make am arrest.
Even removing AI from the picture entirely doesn’t solve this problem. Just look at wrongful arrests that have been made simply because a wanted criminal has the exact same name as someone else.
Looking at recent decisions, it’s going to go badly for those of us who believe in the anti-establishment clause.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law, this actually could be interpreted quite literally by the courts that it is perfectly acceptable for a state to not only establish a religion but to criminalize other beliefs.
I think this would be a 5-4 decision with SCOTUS. I think Barrett would be against it, because she is Catholic and would see that her beliefs may not be the ones promoted. Kavanaugh and Roberts could be a toss up.
Kavenaugh has been better than expected (still bad). Actually, all of the Trump appointments have been less-bad than Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. If it weren’t for the fact that Kavenaugh replaced Kennedy and Barret RBG it wouldn’t be so bad.
The good news is that the next 2 up for replacement are probably Thomas and Alito. If we can hold onto the White House we may be able to unfuck this.
Congress shall make no law, this actually could be interpreted quite literally by the courts that it is perfectly acceptable for a state to not only establish a religion but to criminalize other beliefs.
Reading one piece of the Constitution or the text of any specific statute is kind of useless in our legal system. Other parts of the Constitution, the laws, and the case law that’s been established over centuries and decades also have parts to play.
This particular legal situation has been argued before, and it’s very settled law (at least for now.) Specifically, the 14th Amendment has been viewed to expand many of the Constitutional provisions that originally only restrained Congress to apply to the state governments as well.
It’s most likely to be slapped down in district court, slapped down in the appellate court, and then declined by SCOTUS.
This is also exactly why Roe v Wade made sense – not just because it was the morally correct decision. It ensures that you don’t have radical changes in laws from one jurisdiction to another. How can you have something be legally regarded as a felony in one state and standard healthcare a five minute drive away.
Are you sure that Florida and SD don’t have potential amendments to ban abortion? And we already know how much SD cares about ballot measures. Their constituents voted to legalize pot but their legislature just went “nah, we’re not going to do that”.
State Congress writes bills. The Supreme Court writes interprets laws. Constitutional enshrinement is up to the state’s Supreme Court. They left it up to the voters in November, 60% to win.
A. State Legislature writes laws and they are passed when the executive branch (governor) signs them B. State supreme court determines if laws that have been passed are legal (if challenged). They don’t write laws. C. They already had the voters decide in 2020. It passed and the legislature refused to follow through and said “no, we’re not gonna do that”
So what’s going to stop SD from doing the same thing this time?
Semantics. Congress writes bills. The Governor signs it into law.
It’s true that the Supreme Court doesn’t write laws. I was wrong to write that. They interpret law, including the constitution. In this case they are supporting constitutional enshrinement if the ballot measure gets a 60% vote.
I don’t see that constitutional enshrinement on the 2020 ballot. Do you have a link?
If you go a few levels deeper into minimum wages, tip laws, tax loopholes explanations as to why the world looks the way it does for all kinds of businesses.
Oregon has no sales tax so some beautiful Columbia riverfront property in Portland is a massive shopping complex built in the 60s so Washingtonians across the river can drive over and buy “tax free”, though I’m sure any benefits were long ago mostly neutered by retailers.
This is one example that I think makes sense. Different states have different fire risks and other reasons to prohibit or permit fireworks. Also, fireworks don’t tend to be an essential or regular part of people’s lives. Abortion is essential healthcare. Marijuana is a daily or frequent part of many users lives (and essential for some medicinal users).
Things like this, marriage equality, slavery, prohibition, voting rights, etc. function better when regulated at a federal level.
I agree more states should go this, but radical changes in laws aren’t so unusual. For example, marijuana possession can be legal in one state and a felony five minutes away.
There is a certain preferabillity to having things able to be decentralized enshrined like the way it has to proceed now. If a fascist gets in Office again, California et al can say let you enforce it and give you the finger and that will for the most part be the end of it
Don’t get me wrong: people will fall thru the cracks and there will be blood, but this gentile gentlemen’s agreement bullshit has to stop. The legislatures need to send 'Pubs packing and fucking enshrine actualy damn rights to make them inalienable. The right and sensible thing needs to be the only thing selling and motivating pols to for their own survival do the needful.
Whatever sense or legal rationale Row has furnishing it, it seems obvious in retrospect that Republicans play both the states snd federal rights game, so the States are on their own insulating themselves from the caprices of dissimilar populations that are significantly less representative of the country (as a whole) and also basically antithetical to the entire existence of their own specific state, culturally, geographically, economically, education-wise, the works…
Beyond the obvious constitution issues, federalizing every law makes it harder for the people of a state to adjust the laws of their state to fit their desires. Creating a less democratic society.
Not every law, but there are some policies that create bad situation when they are illegal in some states but not others. Historical examples are slavery, prohibition, voting rights, marriage equality, and abortion.
Slavery being legal in some states but not others led to the Civil War, prohibition led to mob wars, etc. States still have the power to legislate within the law, but setting federal limits is sometimes necessary so the States can remain United.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.