OC for ME
Regular Member
...was "center" defined by the court?...it seems so...
...it is very difficult to follow the rules when the refs (judges) manufacture, on the spot, and out of thin air, advantages for the other team (cops)...Terry v. Ohio, Heien...QI...just to name the big three...but follow the rules we must...
...I get your point...follow the rules and let a judge sort it out latter...no?
Could I ever tell you stories. Had a friend years ago that was convicted of driving right of center. Figure that one out.
Thinking about this point again, it occurs to me that we get what we deserve. I am constantly amazed at how little regard we as citizens have for our law. I've argued that the law is like a set of rules for a game that we've all agreed to go by (directly or through representation doesn't matter for this analysis), and that the game won't work as such, and no one will have any fun unless we all follow the rules. But when I cite some legal authority for some proposition, people sort of roll their eyes and tell me something to the effect that the law's all well and good, but mostly irrelevant and they want to, and will, do what they want, regardless of any law. They make it clear that unless there's some real threat of prosecution, they couldn't give what my uncle referred to as "a good, healthy [defecation]". The law exists so that the fascists can exact retribution against political enemies. It's a weapon to "get" people the System Establishment Machine doesn't like. And it's like that, because we're like that.
How many of us actually stop for stop signs or obey the speed limits? We're a society of hypocrites and our legal system reflects our popular culture. As Pogo said in the mid-1950's, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
I use to have a complete set of the United States Code annotated, 2000 version. Stacked up it was 35 feet tall. If the annotations were removed I would guess the stack would be at least 20 feet tall.Personally I'd have been good with egg heads stopping the making of laws about 150 or so years ago.
There is absolutely no purpose in the existence of law makers now.
If they didnt make enough laws in 200 yrs they are incompetent boobs and Congress needs to be banned from doing anything but repealing laws for approx the next 75 or 100 yrs.
Society is evolving and many new inventions and opportunities are happening every day therefore laws are constantly addressing their use. For example the coronavirus has been in existence for several years, perhaps there should have been better laws requiring its handling.
For a society that is founded upon law it is necessary that they stay current to address new technology and their usage. Just imagine the advancement that has happened in the last two hundred years in travel, weapons, warfare, drugs and medical care among countless other social issues. Laws need to keep pace with life.
No government is worse then a government.
Everybody has some law they could disagree with.
No law in the USA could mitigate a foreign governments acts...or inaction...let alone mitigate incompetence...Society is evolving and many new inventions and opportunities are happening every day therefore laws are constantly addressing their use. For example the coronavirus has been in existence for several years, perhaps there should have been better laws requiring its handling.
For a society that is founded upon law it is necessary that they stay current to address new technology and their usage. Just imagine the advancement that has happened in the last two hundred years in travel, weapons, warfare, drugs and medical care among countless other social issues. Laws need to keep pace with life.
Ya pays your taxes you get a vote...period!truly...
my pet peeve is the state/county ordinances / laws which allow regular but arbitrary property "reassessment" er "revaluation" of taxes on citizen's real property by xyz multiplier. if challenged the nice folks send a team out to "inspect" the property & building to "validate" they were correct!
speaking of this, the statutory provisions which allows those voters who do not own property, outright or financed, can vote on measures raising the property tax rate to fund local schools, special facilities, e.g., sporting venues, municipal buildings, etc.
stepping off my soap box...
The problem is there are those that get to vote on the taxes I must pay and they don't.Ya pays your taxes you get a vote...period!
Then the remedy is that a certain number of our fellow citizens must be denied their right to vote. I'd rather not go down that road.The problem is there are those that get to vote on the taxes I must pay and they don't.
Then the remedy is that a certain number of our fellow citizens must be denied their right to vote. I'd rather not go down that road.
So at least two classes of voters, then? Those who can vote for elected officials (e.g. everyone) and only those who own businesses/real estate can vote on issues that directly affect that tax base? So do you think that only those folks should be entitled to emergency services response? Or that only their kids should attend public schools? Those who own rental property also pay these same taxes, and guess what? It comes out of the tenants' rent. Should they get a rent reduction?put me on the side of "those who do not own ~ don't vote" on those community/state issues which impacts homeowner property taxes, ad nauseam!