21–30 of 157 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe if you guys elected that biker who debated in a leather jacket things would have been different. Or at least more interesting. ;)
Hah! That guy stole my heart with his comments on accepting gay marriage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYntFCsukNk (really gets going at 0:40)
As an Idaho resident, I'm very grateful that this was struck down. It's a terrible idea. Too bad Butch (governor) can't tell the difference between right and wrong when his corporate sponsors are involved (which is always).
As another Idaho resident, it will never stop being hilarious that the governor's name is "Butch" Otter. Doing his best to reinforce the redneck Idaho stereotypes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Under these treaties it doesn't matter if a law is based on the constitution or not. If the trade courts rule that a country's law violates the treaty the country will be punished via trade protectionisms such as quotas or import taxes.
"Quotas". In English, we use a plain S to denote a plural.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The judge ruled it unconstitutional. I don't believe that even the TPP can override such a ruling (assuming it is not ultimately overturned by a higher court).
Treaties actually become the 'supreme law of the land' but where and how they can override other things is a bit murky. I don't think they'll exactly let them sign away Consitutional rights via treaty, but sometimes I wonder. Anyhow, there's a good review of the (complicated) subject here: http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/01/limits-on-the-treaty-pow... Honestly, I would think it more likely that private contracts, pa…
Whether or not chickens are of moral consequence is an argument that can be had; it is perfectly reasonable to for the owners of these factory farms to either argue that chickens are not of moral consequence and deserve no more protection or consideration than the rocks in a quarry or that the methods they use are moral and do not constitute an unreasonable mistreatment of the chickens.
But they prefer not to have that argument; this is not unlike many other industries who prefer to avoid moral arguments by hiding or denying the facts.
How about we pass another, federal law. Any politician who votes for or promotes any law that actively and intentionally seeks to violate the first amendment is guilty of treason.
I was thinking about this law during the recent Planned Parenthood undercover video stuff, as in why does the food industry get more protection than medical clinics. But what I still don't understand is how any of these undercover videos are legal under regular wiretapping laws. I always thought you have to get a party's consent to record them.
> I still don't understand is how any of these undercover videos are legal IANAL but I thought it is legal as long as one of the parties consents to the recording. I could secretly tape a conversation with you without your knowledge since I consent to it. However, the police would need court approval to tape our conversation since neither of us consent.
Laws on consent for recording vary from state to state, and all-party consent is required in some.
Thank you, Judge B. Lynn Winmill, of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. Let your name be repeated and known as someone that does away with laws bordering on absurdism and pure corporate protectionism. That this even needed to be reviewed because it passed state legislatures is insane. That it's a law mimicked by many states is very seriously disturbing. It means that there are hundreds or mor…