51–60 of 106 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes the idea that the govt is the best at everything (let alone schooling...)
Once you grow up around a bunch of home schooled kids that only learned a bit of the Bible you begin to realize that having a wide ranging education across a bunch of topics is important to create people that aren't total gibbering idiots.
I hope the landowner wins his case. Wildlife officers need to follow the Constitution.
I'm not getting the impression from the article that wildlife officers, a whole group of people, are running roughshod over the US Constitution.
In the general case however, I'm not sure they should have the powers that the statute implies without proportionate limits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a fan of vouchers in general, especially if they allow public funds to go to religious institutions, but educational choice (as IJ terms it) is a tricky area. A lot of times these programs allow people to move between public schools or get additional funds for alternative programs that better suit their children's needs.
Why shouldn't finds go to religious institutions? I lived in a western country that allows public funding for religious schools, which I attended while growing up. The schools are still fulfilling a public need of educating students. Is it because they are religious?
You could argue that the 1st Amendment only applies to laws written by Congress and not the whims of state governments but the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that it does extend downwards like that.
Then again, the Supreme Court also ruled that if a state does decide to subsidize private education it can't discriminate based on religion VS non-religion (Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue).
The bigger argument: By allowing a state to fund religious institutions (educational or not) you're basically granting the state great power over religious institutions (as well as taking non-sectarian money and giving it to sectarian causes). A governor or powerful congressman/regulator could demand all sorts of concessions from religious institutions or their funding could be withheld or reduced. In other words, it gives the government direct (and/or indirect) influence over the religion itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a "legal philosophy" that's how states work (i.e. it is their land). The state always controls all the land within its borders. "Ownership" is a tradeoff: Individuals get to do what they want (for the most part) with the land and also get protection by the state against crimes/disasters (e.g. fire) that occur within that property while the state gets tax revenue. If you 100% truly owned your own land you'd b…
> It's not a "legal philosophy" that's how states work (i.e. it is their land). The state always controls all the land within its borders. You're confusing ownership with control. Ownership grants but does not guarantee control [1]. Countries nominally control the territory within their borders. In this case, the state is also legally entitled to certain rights pertaining to the water. (Similar to how a homeowner is…
It's a bit of a sore spot for me, when the local city tried to condemn my parent's land for $30k - less than a quarter of what they paid for it back in the 70's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's shameful to do in the US, given our principles of justice. Maybe it was negligent rather than intentional. For example, the company might've just been using some form they got from an outsourced service. Or a lawyer might've made the form for them, but using an obnoxius template (as templates tend to be, AFAICT). So, when people are in this situation, they can try asking the company about it (a recruiter, HR c…
Our principles of justice? You are aware that we use incarceration as a source of slave labor for the government and private companies, right? That even after folks have served their time, we severely restrict their rights for the rest of their lives? I'm not trying to be an ass, but the US' principles of justice are universally fucked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moving along a shoreline is different from trespassing on the curtilage of someone's home.
Except he never actually entered the home... He knocked and then left. Also - despite the repeated attempts at implying it in the article, I really don't suspect the guy is there to creep on an elderly cancer patient in her bathroom. It sounds a lot like he's on land, which is not protected by the 4th, and he's there well within his scope of authority as granted by the state. No trespassing signs only apply to someon…
The state can't give you permission to something that the federal government explicitly doesn't give you access to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our principles of justice? You are aware that we use incarceration as a source of slave labor for the government and private companies, right? That even after folks have served their time, we severely restrict their rights for the rest of their lives? I'm not trying to be an ass, but the US' principles of justice are universally fucked.
How about "our best ideals"? There's certainly huge, often tragic problems. I'm not disputing that. But there's also some really admirable ideas and activity also going on. I'm appealing to the good parts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not a "legal philosophy" that's how states work (i.e. it is their land). The state always controls all the land within its borders. You're confusing ownership with control. Ownership grants but does not guarantee control [1]. Countries nominally control the territory within their borders. In this case, the state is also legally entitled to certain rights pertaining to the water. (Similar to how a homeowner is…
It's not even ownership. Not when the government can take back your property for virtually any reason. It's a bit of a sore spot for me, when the local city tried to condemn my parent's land for $30k - less than a quarter of what they paid for it back in the 70's.
As you observed, ownership is never absolute. It's a social construct. Evertyhing from squatters' rights to condemnation by public officials to private foreclosure show that.
IJ has a few similar cases: https://ij.org/issues/ijs-project-on-the-4th-amendment/open-... The idea that state officials can trespass on your land and plant cameras (or steal yours) without even a suspicion of a crime is absurd, even if just for how much danger it puts the state employees in.
I imagine the state sees the land as their property, which private individuals don't, strictly speaking, own but merely hold infinite lease on (land tax = rent price, eminent domain = one-side lease termination with compensation, etc). This legal philosophy arguably makes some theoretical sense but has rather unpalatable practical consequences.
No. The officer trespassed. Burglars aren't promulgating an alternate legal foundation of ownership, they're just jacking your shit.