31–40 of 95 posts
Because, you know, it's weird to complain or sue every time that the government doesn't make something you wanted. Because in few years people have the power to elect another set of representatives.
I doubt this will get very far. It seems like it would open up a whole can of worms and completely subvert our entire system of law making. >She declared the facts of man-made climate change “undisputed,” and supported the plaintiffs’ challenge to hold national powers accountable for the damages caused by global warming. >Aikin wrote: “This action is of a different order than the typical environmental case. It allege…
> So if I decide that taxes are too high and I present evidence that the tax rate is at the wrong end of the laffer curve I could get my money back? How does that flow from these quotes? To be equivalent, you would need to prove that the tax rate is so insane that it has a substantial chance of killing you. Equivalent arguments for tax relief are in relation to poverty, medical costs, food and basic necessities, etc…
I doubt this will get very far. It seems like it would open up a whole can of worms and completely subvert our entire system of law making. >She declared the facts of man-made climate change “undisputed,” and supported the plaintiffs’ challenge to hold national powers accountable for the damages caused by global warming. >Aikin wrote: “This action is of a different order than the typical environmental case. It allege…
Yes, if govt decides to tax some lifesaving drug at 10000%, you should sue them.
A carbon tax is one of the best ways to address CO2 pollution.
Though I totally agree with cause, I find USA system suing your government/municipal/etc. a weird system. 1. Law works mostly well to enforce current system. E.g. There is law that you have to process my application in 30 days, but it was delayed by year and I lost something because of that. 2. Currently it is often use as a way to shape future laws. E.g. AirBnB sues some city against new law. Uber does the same. 3.…
It's used to contest laws that are believed to possibly be in violation of existing law.
>3. The 2. case is very tricky. No doubt both sides will spend tons on legal fees, but outcome can be very arbitrary, not based on interpretation on current laws/.
Huh? What's the outcome going to be based on if not on the current law? Unless you're specifically referring to common/civil law difference that makes no sense.
>4. This system most likely benefit the most lawyers, as the benefit from the ambiguity. Maybe we should accept the fact, that not all conflicts can be solved in court room? E.g. city can pass stupid law that doesn't make sense (e.g. ban AirBnB) and nobody got right to sue because of that. The only exceptions should be conflict with upper law (e.g. no city can ban minority or pass law not to pay federal tax).
It sounds like you're suggesting that cities should have significantly higher legislative powers not restricted by the courts? I must be misunderstanding, but in case I'm not... why?
I am surprised by the very negative ton of the first 10+ comments. These kids are not kids any more. They are between 15 and 20. As a reminder, Lafayette was 16. They see an issue and act on it with the tools they have. When you have an issue with a piece of software, you look at the alternatives and possibly you act on the issue, you fix it. They do what you do as designer/software developer, just in another field.…
It makes me worry when people think that "Government" is something unrelated to people, like it was an alien structure that just arrived in his country. In democracies, I mean. Because, you know, it's weird to complain or sue every time that the government doesn't make something you wanted. Because in few years people have the power to elect another set of representatives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's people who rape people, murder people, poison people... oh wait, they're all illegal too.
So let's sue government for rapist and murderers to end it?
It makes me worry when people think that "Government" is something unrelated to people, like it was an alien structure that just arrived in his country. In democracies, I mean. Because, you know, it's weird to complain or sue every time that the government doesn't make something you wanted. Because in few years people have the power to elect another set of representatives.
So not much incentive for long-term policies.
It makes me worry when people think that "Government" is something unrelated to people, like it was an alien structure that just arrived in his country. In democracies, I mean. Because, you know, it's weird to complain or sue every time that the government doesn't make something you wanted. Because in few years people have the power to elect another set of representatives.
You're correct if the government rules/laws are all made by the representatives. But a substantial amount of regulation is established or defined in detail by non-elected government employees. So, in many cases, waiting for a change in representatives won't change the status quo. This is in large part due to Congress abdicating their rule-making role and handing it to the executive branch. Sure, electing the "right" set of congresspeople should fix that, but it hasn't, and it's been on a downward trend of the past decade or two?
One example is the NSA surveillance. You should be able to sue the government to stop it if you think it's unconstitutional. We've now 2 congressional elections since the first Snowden revelations and congress still seems to be generally in support of the surveillance. So citizens need another avenue to protect themselves from laws and regulations which they feel to violate their rights.