Its not a human rights violation in the US because the US is the only member of the UN that never ratified the UN convention on the rights of the child.
Its not a human rights violation in the US because the US is the only member of the UN that never ratified the UN convention on the rights of the child.
People can support both trans rights and prisoner rights.
She turns 35 in October, well before the January inauguration (and the November election)
Except in this case, it is directly relevant to the legal issue at hand. When deciding a free speach case, the first part of the analysis is if the restriction is content neutral or not.
A content neutral rule is held to the standard of intermintent scrutiny, and is frequently upheld. A content based rule is held to the standard of strict scrutiny and almost always struck drown.
If the rule against signs on the overpass were enforced uniformly, then the white supremesists would not have a legal leg to stand on. But, at least based on the article, the rule is not being enforced uniformly at all; and is only being brought up now due to the content of the speech. That puts it squarly in the realm of strict scrutiny; giving the government a very uphill battle in court.
Bribery: SNYDER v. UNITED STATES
Kavanaugh writing for the majority:
The question in this case is whether §666 also makes it a crime for state and local officials to accept gratuities—for example, gift cards, lunches, plaques, books, framed photos, or the like—that may be given as a token of appreciation after the official act. The answer is no.
The official act was a $1.1 million contract. The “token of appreciation” was a $13,000 check. At trial it was argued that the payment was for consulting services, but presumably the jury did not believe that.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf
Presidential immunity: TRUMP v. UNITED STATES
At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient
The court takes a very broad view of core constitutional conduct
In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives
Trump is therefore absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.
But it nevertheless contends that a jury could “consider” evidence concerning the President’s official acts “for limited and specified purposes,” and that such evidence would “be admissible to prove … " The Government’s position is untenable in light of the separation of powers principles we have outlined.
Like everyone else, the President is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity. But unlike anyone else, the President is a branch of government, and the Constitution vests in him sweeping powers and duties.
For vaccines, we shouldn’t even be dispensing them at cost. Vaccinations are the second most cost effective public health intervention ever, beaten only by clean drinking water.
In purely financial terms, the cost of vaccinations are lower than the average cost to the US tax payer of someone getting sick. The public service of people not getting sick is a nice bonus. As is reducing the chances of this becoming another Covid style economic catastrophe (plus, again, the public service of protecting your citizens)
Regardless of justice, this type of lawsuit isn’t in the interest of any reasonable world order.
They are suing sovereign countries for assisting in an attack on Israel. In a US federal court. With no treaties backing the suit; just a law passed unilaterally by the US.
That is not the way international law works at all. By the logic, Peru could pass a law allowing it’s citizens to sue the US because they have family that took a vacation in mexico where they were shot by a US gun.
This should be viewed in context of the US’s refusal to join the ICC, and the “Hague Invasion Act” (American Service-Members’ Protection Act) that authotizes unbounded military force against the ICC if it acts against anyone working for the US or a US ally. As well as a bill passed in the house attempting to sanction the ICC for its move against Israeli leadership.
The entire theory behind being able to have such a lawsuit in a US federal court is US imperialism.
Also, if a boy wanted to wear makeup and a dress while still being a boy, you know this lady would still have a problem with it.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.
Overall, the dissent is good. But it makes 1 fundamental mistake of constitutional analysis:
The Constitution cannot be evaded by such formalistic distinctions
pretty
You monster!
Trump did experience more racial discrimination in housing than most black people ever will.
Yes. Anything other than a new law or new decision by the Supreme Court is subject to the whims of the current administration.
Without the courts, the law stands. The Supreme Court is not the problem here. The Republican legislature is. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a check on the legislature; and their failure to do that is a problem.
Also, this case is not about women’s rights, it is about trans rights. Trans men are impacted too.
The downpayment requirements are much looser now then they used to be. Pretty much anyone in the US can get as low as 3 to 3.5% down, which means the down payment can easily be less than all the other home buying expenses (closing cost, inspection, title insurance, loan origination, moving, transfer taxes, …). You also typically have a month before you need to make your first principle repayment, which helps offset the down payment.
Veterans, active service members, and people buying in qualified rural areas can get 0 down mortgages.
Depending on where you live, there might be further assistance available. Around here, the county offers (means tested) down-payment assistance loans that cover 100% the minimum down payment, and has an interest rate that is at least 2% lower than that of the main loan. They also wave all transfer taxes for all first time buyers.
For now. Unfourtuantly, that is not the way wars work.
First of all, Hezbolla is part of the Lebanese government (and has a more powerful military than Lebanon proper), so the chance of Lebanon supporting an Israeli campaign against Hezbolla is effectively nil.
Second of all, Israel is clearly on an escalatory ladder since October 7, and has shown no interest in getting off. The conflict between Israel and Hezbolla has been a thing since Hezbollas founding, and has escalated to wars before. However, this latest round of conflict is clearly an escallation of the war in Gaza. An escallation that both Israel and Hezbolla keep poking at.
Unless Israel changes its stance, this is not going to end with a war in Lebanon. Remember Iran? Back in April, Israel launched a largely unprovoked attack on Iran in Syria, killing a fairly high ranking member of Iran’s military (along with others, including some Syrian civilians).
In addition to being a potential war crime (they bombed a diplomatic building, although there is an argument that the details make it allowed under intetnational law), this was also simply an act of war against Syria and Iran. 2 countries that Israel is not at war with, and which are clearly not interested in going to war.
Syrua let Israel off with a finger wagging. Iran let Israel off with a telegraphed missile strike that they knew had a high chance of being completely intercepted. Or at least they tried to, But Israel couldn’t take the win, and so launched another strike against Iran. Similar to Iran, Israel calculated this one to be limited. However, unlike Israel, Iran took the opportunity to back off.
Netenyahu specifically has been trying to start a war with Iran for decades, and is now actively escalating with Iranian proxies.
From the US perspective, this is frustrating because this is exactly what we have been warning Israel about, and exactly what Israel has been ignoring us about. You could argue that October 7 and the subsequent war are a consequence of decades of Israeli policy combided with a tactical/intelligence failure allowing the specific attack to succeed.
However the current round of escallation with Hezbolla is a direct and predictable consequence of the strategic decisions that Israel has made in responce to October 7. Strategic decisions that the entire world had cautioned them against. Strategic decisions that senior IDF leaders have admitted cannot possibly achieve their objectives.
When this escalates into a full scale regional war with Iran, that will also have been a consequence of Israeli strategic decisions. And the US will again be asked to bail them out
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice
The axiom of choice asserts that it is possible to pick an arbitrary element from every set. Most of mathametics accepts this. However constructivist math does not.
Life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus 190 years, and the defendent waves almost all of his appeal rights. All of that without needing to go through the efforst, expense, and trauma of a trial. The prosecutors were only able to get this deal because the case against them was so strong.
There is no law that says you can’t have 17.
Yes there is. It is the Judiciary Act of 1869.
Line item vetoes are one thing (which I oppose, but can understand).
The veto in question turns “2024-25” into “2425”
Looking the the Wisconsin constitution, there seems to be 2 relevant sections:
The first is the authority for partial vetoes.
Appropriations may be approved in whole or in part by the chief executive officer.
In my opinion, this already does not authorize, the type of creative vetoing the governor tried.
However, the constitution goes on to clarify:
In approving an appropriation bill in part, the governor may not create a new word by rejecting individual letters in the words of the enrolled bill, and may not create a new sentence by combining parts of 2 or more sentences of the enrolled bill.
It would take an obtusely literal reading of these provisions to allow for striking individual digits and puncuation marks to create new numbers.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/constitution/wi_unannotated
Not quite. You need a quorum if senators present, and more affirmative votes than negative.
Having said that, if this actually was a viable vote with 49 senators supporting, you would probably see more vote. Although, I suspect there are at least a few senate Republicans who would at least abstain to let it pass.