Open Question: I need help with these soc questions?

(01) Which part of the federal government is most like the New York State Assembly? (1) cabinet(3) House of Representatives (2) Supreme Court (4) Treasury Department (01) • Congress could not levy and collect taxes. • Congress could not regulate interstate or foreign trade. • There was no national court system to settle disputes. • The thirteen separate states lacked national unity. (01) Supreme Court decisions based on First Amendment issues usually involve the (1) rights of individuals (2) control of big business (3) collection of taxes on income (4) corruption in government (02) At the Constitutional Convention, the Great Compromise settled the dispute over (1) representation in Congress (2) the issue of slavery (3) the presidential veto power (4) judicial review Base answers on next two questions on the quotes be (03) The Preamble of the United States Constitution says that the power to govern originates with the (1) states (3) Supreme Court (2) president (4) people (03)The New York State Constitution, adopted in 1777, was important because it (1) inspired the writing of the Declaration of Independence (2) maintained British influence in the State (3) served as a model for the Constitution of the United States (4) gave all adult males the right to vote (03) Delegates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 agreed to the Three-Fifths Compromise as a way to (1) limit the power of the president (2) provide legal rights for women (3) settle differences over representation in Congress (4) establish term lengths for senators (03) During the struggle over ratification of the Constitution, Federalists and Antifederalists disagreed mainly over the (1) wisdom of maintaining friendship with England (2) need for the continuation of slavery (3) election of George Washington as the first president (4) division of power between the national government and the states (04) Delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 wrote a new constitution because (1) the Revolutionary War was over (2) the Articles of Confederation were about to expire (3) they wanted to increase the power of the states (4) they believed that a stronger central government was necessary (04) Many of the settlers of the original thirteen colonies had experienced religious discrimination in Europe. This situation influenced the authors of the United States Constitution to establish (1) separation of church and state (2) the right to bear arms (3) freedom to petition the government (4) freedom from cruel and unusual punishment (04) • The president appoints new members to the Supreme Court. • The Senate must approve presidential appointments to the Supreme Court. • The Supreme Court can declare laws made by Congress unconstitutional. Which constitutional principle do these statements illustrate? (1) flexibility (2) federalism (3) checks and balances (4) federal supremacy (05) Which provision was included in the United States Constitution to allow it to adapt to changing times? (1) separation of powers (2) an electoral college (3) a federal system (4) an amendment process (05) The authors of the United States Constitution included a system of checks and balances to (1) prevent any one branch of government from controlling the other branches (2) protect states against the power of the national government (3) guarantee respect for the freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights (4) safeguard the United States against foreign attacks (05) The Constitution of the United States was considered an improvement over the Articles of Confederation because the Constitution changed the (1) status of slavery (2) civil rights of minorities (3) number of Americans eligible to vote (4) balance of power between national and state governments (06)Which statement best illustrates the principle of federalism? (1) The president has the power to veto bills. (2) Congress is divided into two houses. (3) The Supreme Court has the power to review laws. (4) Power is divided between the states and the national government. (06) The system of checks and balances was included in the Constitution to (1) provide a method to change the document (2) allow voters a voice in the legislative process (3) ensure that one branch of government would not gain too much power (4) allow for trial by jury in all civil and criminal cases (06) Which part of the federal government is most affected by the results of the federal census? (1) House of Representatives (2) Supreme Court (3) president’s cabinet (4) United States Senate (04) In this debate between Speaker A and Speaker B, Speaker A would most likely agree that the leaders of the nation should (1) establish a monarchy (2) add a bill of rights to the Constitution (3) increase the power of the federal government (4) limit the right to vote to property owners (07) more

Open Question: what do u think about this essay?

The death penalty is forbidden in all states for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crime following the Supreme Court's. But in some states teens are tired as adults for example in Connecticut, New York, North Carolina they considered adults at age Sixteen, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin at age seventeen and in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming, plus the District of Columbia at age seventeen ,which at that age should be acting as men not murders who will end up being serial killers if not stopped at an early age but defiantly should be killed. As of October 2009, fourteen states and the District of Columbia have abolished the death penalty; and New York has declared a portion of its capital punishment statute unconstitutional. The difference between New York's status and that of the other listed states is that, while their judiciary nullified a portion of the current death penalty law, the state hasn't passed legislation officially banning capital punishment. These states do have death penalty Alaska 1957 Hawaii 1948 Iowa 1965 Maine 1887 Massachusetts 1984 Michigan 1846 Minnesota 1911 North Dakota 1973 Rhode Island 1984 Vermont 1964 West Virginia 1965 Wisconsin 1853 Washington, DC 1981 New Jersey .2007 New Mexico 2009 New York 2004, 2007. In conclusion we need more states to have the death penalty to save life’s . these people who kill and rape innocent people should not have the privilege of living on this beautiful plant. If someone has cuts to take another human bens life they should have the cuts to take there own life as well. We waste millions of dollars on these cold hearted “animals” to give them education , shelter , food, we might as well let them go home because all they do is watch TV all day. And when they do get death row they get to live there life for another 20 years until their executed more

Open Question: Arizona is making a law banning Anchor Babies! Do you think it will hold up?

I checked the amendment, and it does say citizenship is granted to people born in the US, and "subject to the jurisdiction therof". I would figure this wouldn't include illegal aliens, since they avoid US jurisdiction by their very presence. The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby. Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.'The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. (Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874)) And yes, you should reread the Slaughterhouse Cases. It doesn't confirm citizenship for anchor babies more

Open Question: Supreme court opinions affect US laws and our rights?

How can opinions of the justices on the SC affect US laws and our rights? How does the president affect their opinions through appointment power? more

Open Question: Hey Conservatives, what are your well-thought-out solutions for solving America's main problems?

Such as the sluggish economy, the BP oil spill, immigration, discrimination against gays in the military, inability to pass an anti-beastiality law in Florida, activist conservative judges on the Supreme Court saying business are people, 1st Amendment violations of church/state separation, the "War on Terror," etc.Wow, listen to those crickets chirping. Can't say I'm surprised. more

Resolved Question: Do you think I am right or wrong?

I believe the reason the Obama adminstration is trying to get the courts to drop (I believe it is Virgina) the challenge on the part of the health care law about requiring people to carry health insurnace is that they don't want it to get to the Supreme Court more

Resolved Question: American Government help! Please! ?

1. This entity has the final rule on the establishment clause. a. the Supreme Court b. a religious leader c. Congress d. a state court 2. A person who gives up United States citizenship and lives in another country is (2 points) a. an expatriate. b. a denaturalized citizen. c. a naturalized citizen. d. a non-resident alien. 3. As a citizen, you have access to public records because of this act. (2 points) a. Sunshine Act b. Freedom of Information Act c. Civil Rights Act d. USA Patriot Act 4. This is the goal of the U.S. justice system. (2 points) a. expressed contracts with citizens b. fundamental rights c. equal justice under the law d. hung juries in criminal cases 5. Before primary elections, candidates were chosen in private meetings called (2 points) a convention meetings. b. caucuses. c. precinct meetings. d. ward meetings. 6. This gave African–Americans the right to vote. (2 points) a. Fifteenth Amendment b. Twenty-sixth Amendment c. Nineteenth Amendment d. Twenty-first Amendment 7. The lobbyist's strongest tool is (2 points) a. friendship. b. information. c. a campaign contribution. d. an entertainment gift. 8. This is the protector of the rights of the media. (2 points) a. League of Women Voters b. First Amendment c. Federal Communications Commission d. Telecommunications Commission 9. Controlling money to influence the economy is called (2 points) a. reconciliation. b. reserve requirement. c. monetary policy. d. fiscal policy. 10. These are the federal government's financial instruments, such as bonds, notes, and certificates. (2 points) a. securities b. entitlements c. discount rates d. uncontrollables 11. Negotiating labor contracts is called (2 points) a. injunctions. b. urban renewal. c. collective bargaining. d. developing trusts. 12. This is an agreement between nations and approved by Congress. (2 points) a. treaty b. sanctions c. executive agreement d. bipartisan agreement 13. This is NOT a function of a state constitution. (2 points) a. appoints officials b. outlines methods of election c. creates the structure of government d. provides for separation of powers 14. This is part of the state constitution amendment process. (2 points) a. judicial review b. extradition c. mandates d. proposal and ratification 15. The executive branch of the state is headed by the (2 points) a. speaker of the house. b. lieutenant governor. c. attorney general. d. governor. 16. This is issued by the state to make the incorporated community legal. (2 points) a. referendum b. charter c. bond d. mass transit permit 17. The ability of nations to develop economically while at the same time protecting the environment is called (2 points) a. equilibrium. b. human rights. c. sustainable development. d. positive rights. 18. An economic system with a central authority is called a (2 points) a. mixed system. b. traditional system. c. command system. d. market system. 19. Because society does not have all the resources that everyone wants, this exists. (2 points) a. comparative advantage b. scarcity c. nationalization d. free trade agreements 20. Risk takers who produce goods and services in search of profit are (2 points) a. entrepreneurs. b. a monopoly. c. trading blocs. d. factors of production. more

Open Question: Is the FLDS (NOT LDS) as bad as I read?

(NOT THE MAINSTREAM MORMONS BUT "Fundy Mormons"? * Young girls (like 14 or 15) FORCED to marry usually older men with 2 or more wives? *Young men are cast out for small sins like cursing or smoking a cigarette to reduce competition for wives for the men? *Warren Jeffs is a scumbag? (he arranged the illegal "marriages) He will or SHOULD be guilty in AZ & TX too. His Utah conviction WILL NOT be overturned on A BS technicality! That would be a GROSS miscarriage of justice for these poor girls! NO TV, books, internet, no higher education? Correct me if I am wrong. I live in TX near San Angelo where the "YFZ" ranch is. CPS & TX DPS didn't raid it for NO reason. Didn't they find 14 y/o pregnant girls & such then the TX Supreme Court ruled in favor of FLDS. Aren't these people just HIDING behind their religion to break the law: many are on welfare? I am not say ALL polygamist families/groups are bad but the FLDS sounds like they need to stop living in the 19th Century!Yeah I would consider them a cult too but not on the same caliber as Jonestown or Branch Davidians. Adultery isn't a crime although it IS a sin & wrong: statutory rape IS against the law!I don't mean to paint them all w' same brush: many familes are very loving & happy & there is no abuse. I know abuse/ child rape, etc can happen in a monogamous household too!Thanks for input! more

Open Question: Supreme Court Justices?

How many current supreme court justices attended Harvard Law? Past or Current. more

Resolved Question: Is this amazing? The Supreme Court just decided a case 9-0?

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/05/24/american-needle-high-court-delivers-9-0-shutout-against-nfl/ more

Resolved Question: What was the Supreme Court case that declared that the line-item veto was unconstitutional?

I remember studying this in our Executive Powers capsule in constitutional law class, but I forget the name of the case. Our Supreme Court declared president Clinton's bipartisan line-item veto bill to be unconstitutional. The White House has recently announced a bill giving the president the power to send an appropriations bill back to congress for an up or down vote on spending provisions he selects. I wanted to reread the case to see how narrow the ruling was, and to determine whether the proposed legislation would hold up in court. Thanks. more

Open Question: How is this discrimination?

People who get the highest test scores are usually considered the most fit for the positions they are testing for. I think we can all agree that this is pretty reasonable. I don't understand the grounds for alleged discrimination in this case. They're don't seem to be arguing that the test is biased in any way nor do they seem to be arguing that those who did score in the highest percentile were denied employment, rather they seem to be angry that they're not getting the highest scores. Is this a legitimate law suit? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100524/ap_on_bi_ge/us_supreme_court_firefighters_lawsuit more

Open Question: Conservatives - explain to me the Ground Zero mosque thing?

What exactly are you wanting here? Bloomberg to declare a Muslim Exclusion Zone around downtown Manhattan? The Supreme Court to step in and confiscate private property? Laws against non-Christian religious buildings, a la Saudi Arabia?Err yes of course I would Dr PhisDon't rant about how much Islam sucks - should their land be confiscated or not? more

Open Question: Organized labor viewed which of the following events most favorably?

Organized labor viewed which of the following events most favorably? The repeal of the Gentlemen's Agreement Woodrow Wilson's actions following legislation preventing illiterate immigrants from coming to America The passage of the Contract Labor Law The Supreme Court's decision to uphold The Wagner Act Congress's passing the Taft-Hartley Act over President Truman's veto more

Open Question: Can someone help me with Regent Questions For U.S History Homework?

Please can anyone answer any of them you know. i really need help and i wanna study the answer Questions 1 should the president be above the law? Explain based on the above incident. 2. What did Watergate do to Nixon’s reputation and image? 3. How did the system of checks and balances work in the Watergate Scandal? 4.In situations where the President is suspected of wrongdoing, such as the Watergate scandal, the official role of the House of Representatives is to 1. investigate and bring charges against the President 2. conduct the impeachment trial 3. provide attorneys to defend the President 4. determine the punishment if the President is convicted 5.Which principle was most weakened as a result of the Watergate controversy? 1. congressional immunity 2.executive privilege 3.judicial review 4.States' Rights 6.The main significance of the Watergate affair was that it 1. led to the impeachment and conviction of President Richard Nixon 2. showed that the laws of the United States are superior to the actions of a President 3. was the first time a President had disagreed with Congress 4. proved that Presidential powers are unlimited 7.What was a major result of the Watergate controversy? 1. Presidential veto power was expanded. 2. The president resigned from office. 3. Congressional power was reduced. 4. The Supreme Court was weakened Please can someone help me with these few questions i dont understand them please i am having alot of trouble. ;( more

Open Question: Business Law Question?

Hey everyone I have a Business Law question Im confused with, In my opinion my answer to the question for part A and B are No, could you all tell if if I am right or wrong and why, thanks alot! The Supreme Court of State G decided that the United States Constitution requires professors to warn students of their right to remain silent before questioning the students about cheating. This ruling directly conflicts with a decision of the Federal Court of Appeals for the circuit that includes State G. (a) Must the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals withdraw its ruling? (b) Must the Supreme Court of State G withdraw its ruling? more

Open Question: What did Ronald Reagan say about Puerto Rico?

Ronald Reagan on Puerto Rico: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fjOjFLAGgI&feature=related Facts: On July 25, 1898, during the Spanish-American War, Puerto Rico was invaded by the United States The People of Puerto Rico are US citizens since 1917 The citizens of Puerto Rico pay full Medicare payroll taxes but their benefits are capped at 30% of the national average. The government of Puerto Rico lacks legal personality and therefore is unable to make commercial treaties and pacts with the rest of the world. The commerce which we can establish with other countries must be via the United States, its customs, and subject to the conditions of the international treaties that the United States have agreed to, of which Puerto Rico has had no participation or voice. Obviously, Puerto Rico cannot open a niche in the world markets, nor can it establish and implement plans of economic development oriented to foreign trade due to this limitation. In this era of free trade and economic liberalization, Puerto Rico is essentially, because of its continued colonial subordination, a captive market of the United States. Puerto Rico does not have the authority to regulate affairs and policies related to the establishment of communication systems with the outside world. The United States government is the one who has this authority in its exclusive form. All merchandise between ports within US territory must be transported in ships of the American merchant marine. Puerto Rico is obligated to fulfill this disposition while it cannot benefit from the lower costs of ships with foreign matriculation. In this way, the products that arrive and leave the island are made more expensive due to the excessive costs of transportation. It is estimated that in 1999, the costs added to merchandise, due to the transportation costs of the American merchant marine, was over $500 million. All nations need to regulate migratory movements for social reasons, security reasons, and economic reasons. The absolute authority in the matters of emigration to Puerto Rico rests with the federal government. Puerto Rico must admit all persons that the United States authorizes to reside in its territory, including colonies. In such a situation, we lose control over any measure of economic protection that could be established for ourselves and new emigrants. The fact that Puerto Rico must accept the dispositions of laws imposed by another country, without its consent, clearly demonstrates the colonial character of our relationship with the United States. In Puerto Rico, this is called "Estado Libre Asociado"(Free Associated State or Commonwealth). In international law, it is called "colony". Only 2 percent of the People of Puerto Rico support the independence for Puerto Rico. No Congressionally-mandated plebiscite has ever been held in Puerto Rico. It is clear that there is a democracy deficiency in the United States. Thousands of Puerto Ricans have shed their blood defending the United States in the name of freedom and democracy in all wars since World War I. Yet, they are not allowed to vote for their Commander-in-Chief. The people of Puerto Rico do not have voting representation in the U.S. Congress, even though all federal laws apply to them. Therefore, Puerto Ricans have no say in the making of the federal laws that apply to them. Likewise, the U.S. Supreme Court has absolute jurisdiction over Puerto Rico and all its rulings apply to Puerto Rico. However, the people of Puerto Rico do not have representation in the U.S. Senate to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominees. In all, the people of Puerto Rico are ultimately governed by an Executive whom they did not vote for, a Congress in which they are not represented in, and a Supreme Court whose justices they did not confirm. The 4 million U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico are disenfranchised citizens and are treated as second-class U.S. citizens. Are we going to tolerate this un-American and discriminatory treatment towards a particular group of U.S. Citizens? Are you willing to keep contributing $22 billion per year to support this unjust territorial status? After 112 years of service and sacrifice, it is time to add an additional star to our American constellation. Our sons and daughters have made their mark on the US honor roll. I invite you to find a state that has earned more Purple Hearts per capita in combat than our island. Our people are never afraid to defend the red, white, and blue. Being a colony of the United States has changed the lives of five generations and granted them a shot at democracy and an abridged version of the American Dream. But after 112 years of playing in the minor leagues, don't we deserve our shot at the big leagues? more

Resolved Question: Since SCOTUS doesn't accept Rand Paul's Constitutional theories, why should his opinions matter?

Is Rand Paul a judge? Does he aspire to be a judge? No? Then what difference do his interpretations of the Constitution make to anyone's actual lived experience? Yes, he might go to Congress. Yes, he might propose a particular law that reflects his interpretation of the Constitution, and that law might contrast with Supreme Court cases that have held, for example, that the federal government can prevent states or municipalities from having, for example, Jim Crow-type laws. But we all know that even if such a law were passed, a federal court would strike it down in a nanosecond, and SCOTUS would affirm the decision sooner or later. So what difference do his Constitutional theories make if he has no intention of becoming a judge? Just wondering..... Please note that I'm not DEFENDING Rand Paul's opinions. My whole point is that his opinions on Constitutional law DON'T MATTER. more

Resolved Question: If Obama thinks the Az Law is unconstitutional and racist, why does he call in foreign leaders to support him?

rather than taking it to the supreme court?Does he believe their opinions/influence are greater than our constitution and the supreme court? more

Open Question: GlobalRegent HomeWork Help Please :)?

Questions 1 should the president be above the law? Explain based on the above incident. 2. What did Watergate do to Nixon’s reputation and image? 3. How did the system of checks and balances work in the Watergate Scandal? 4.In situations where the President is suspected of wrongdoing, such as the Watergate scandal, the official role of the House of Representatives is to 1. investigate and bring charges against the President 2. conduct the impeachment trial 3. provide attorneys to defend the President 4. determine the punishment if the President is convicted 5.Which principle was most weakened as a result of the Watergate controversy? 1. congressional immunity 2.executive privilege 3.judicial review 4.States' Rights 6.The main significance of the Watergate affair was that it 1. led to the impeachment and conviction of President Richard Nixon 2. showed that the laws of the United States are superior to the actions of a President 3. was the first time a President had disagreed with Congress 4. proved that Presidential powers are unlimited 7.What was a major result of the Watergate controversy? 1. Presidential veto power was expanded. 2. The president resigned from office. 3. Congressional power was reduced. 4. The Supreme Court was weakened Please can someone help me with these few questions i dont understand them more

Resolved Question: Why are liberals so sure that Arizona's anti-illegal-immigration law is unconstitutional?

In a March 22, 2005 ruling, in Muehler v Mena, in unanimous decision from a Court known for its 5-4 splits, the United States Supreme Court essentially said that asking about immigration status during a lawful police contact (or, by implication, any lawful contact) was as fundamental a question as asking for name, address and date of birth. Indeed, the Court made clear that no predicate "independent reasonable cause' need exist to inquire into immigration status. It is the Law of the Land. http://www.cairco.org/legal/legal.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1423.ZO.html more

Open Question: What majority of Supreme Court jusitces must agree for a ruling to become law?

I know its five or six. more

Open Question: Which of the following best explains the lasting importance of the decision in Marbury v. Madison?

A. It established that the Supreme Court had the right to review and decide the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. B. It showed that bitter party politics had become a permanent feature. C. It solidified Federalist control of the judicial branch. D. It ended James Madison's political career. more

Voting Question: which of the following is not an example of the checks and balances system?

a. the president makes an executive agreement. b. the supreme court declares a law passed by congress to be unconstitutional. more

Voting Question: Which of the following took place on D-Day? (?

the last fight to get American supplies across the Atlantic to Britain the first British and American landings in North Africa the start of the Allied invasion of Italy the landing of Allied forces on France's Normandy coast 12. What finally brought an end to World War II? (1 point) a massive Soviet invasion of the Japanese islands the appeasement of Germany a U.S. naval blockade of Japan the dropping of atomic bombs by the United States on Hiroshimma and Nagasaki 13. What did President Truman promise in the Truman Doctrine? (1 point) to support nations trying to resist Soviet control to fight hunger anywhere in the world to enforce the American foreign policy of brinkmanship to reject the former policy of containment 14. What was the outcome of the Korean War? (1 point) Korea was unified under a Communist government. North Korea surrendered after the threat of atomic warfare. Korea remained divided at almost exactly the same place as before the war. China controlled North Korea while South Korea remained independent. 15. The 1957 launching of Sputnik (1 point) proved the superiority of American technology. greatly increased Eisenhower's popularity. plunged the United States into a series of three recessions. caused Congress to increase spending on teaching science and mathematics. 16. A 1950s technological innovation furthered by research during World War II was the (1 point) television. radio. drive-in movie. computer. 17. Participants in the 1963 March on Washington hoped to (1 point) get "Bull" Connor prosecuted for police brutality. convince Congress to pass civil rights legislation. prevent the reelection of President Kennedy. do battle with the police of Washington, D.C. 18. After Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, (1 point) the civil rights movement slowly ended. white Southerners still prevented most African Americans from voting. many African Americans were elected to office at all levels. the Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional. 19. Which of the following best describes the Great Society? (1 point) It won passage of several New Frontier goals and added to them. It threw out New Frontier measures and replaced them all. It lacked any support in Congress. It cut back considerably on federal government spending. 20. Which of the following brought the United States and the Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war? (1 point) the Cuban Missile Crisis the Limited Test Ban Treaty the Panamanian riot the Bay of Pigs invasion 21. The women's movement borrowed legal tools and inspiration from the (1 point) hippies. United Farm Workers. American Indian Movement. civil rights movement. more

Voting Question: Whats the point of taking the AZ law to court? Don't you know the Supreme Court still leans conservative?

Even if Obama gets that Harvard academic on the supreme court, she will be replacing the "Chief Justice of the Liberal Wing" of the court. Sotamayor replaced a liberal, too. There is still Roberts, Alito, Clarence Thomas, and the greatest of all; Scalia...Anthony Kennedy is a swing vote, but he has voted against illegal aliens in the past. So why do all of you think a lawsuit can work? All it will do is make it the supreme law of the land permanently.I just checked, and Kennedy voted for no time limit for detaining illegal aliens. He believes they can be detained indefinitely until a country comes to take them. more

Voting Question: Why don't people like the Arizona immigration law, what about the federal statue?

For days now, the President and other political morons have commented on a topic they don't fully understand. Under the new Arizona law, police officers will need reasonable suspicion to question a person's immigration status. Under federal statue and Supreme Court rule, police officers do not need reasonable suspicion to question a person's immigration status. So why are people in an uproar about the Arizona law when in fact it is more restrictive than federal law? ---For those of you doubters out there please feel free to check my facts at the Supreme Court's website. Look up the case of INS v. Delgado (1984): Justice Renhquist wrote the opinion of the court in which they clearly stated, "detentive questioning" of individuals could be conducted only if INS agents could articulate "objective facts providing investigators with a reasonable suspicion that each questioned person, so detained, is an alien illegally in this country." Under our analysis, however, since there was no seizure of the work forces by virtue of the method of conducting the factory surveys, the only way the issue of individual questioning could be presented would be if one of the named respondents had in fact been seized or detained." and "our recent decision in Royer, supra, plainly implies that interrogation relating to one's identity or a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure." Also, the Court reaffirmed this decision in the case of Muheler v. Mena (2005). Chief Justice Renhquist wrote the opinion of the court in which they clearly stated This holding, it appears, was premised on the assumption that the officers were required to have independent reasonable suspicion in order to question Mena concerning her immigration status because the questioning constituted a discrete Fourth Amendment event. But the premise is faulty. We have "held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure."tonalc2 - If you had read the case opinion, you would know the the court is talking specifically about immigration status in the case of Delgado. That were not being asked for their "identification", they were being asked to identify themselves as either legal or illegal aliens. more

Voting Question: What is the oldest Colony in the world today?

The Oldest Colony in the World: Puerto Rico... Facts: On July 25, 1898, during the Spanish-American War, Puerto Rico was invaded by the United States The People of Puerto Rico are US citizens since 1917 The citizens of Puerto Rico pay full Medicare payroll taxes but their benefits are capped at 30% of the national average. The government of Puerto Rico lacks legal personality and therefore is unable to make commercial treaties and pacts with the rest of the world. The commerce which we can establish with other countries must be via the United States, its customs, and subject to the conditions of the international treaties that the United States have agreed to, of which Puerto Rico has had no participation or voice. Obviously, Puerto Rico cannot open a niche in the world markets, nor can it establish and implement plans of economic development oriented to foreign trade due to this limitation. In this era of free trade and economic liberalization, Puerto Rico is essentially, because of its continued colonial subordination, a captive market of the United States. Puerto Rico does not have the authority to regulate affairs and policies related to the establishment of communication systems with the outside world. The United States government is the one who has this authority in its exclusive form. All merchandise between ports within US territory must be transported in ships of the American merchant marine. Puerto Rico is obligated to fulfill this disposition while it cannot benefit from the lower costs of ships with foreign matriculation. In this way, the products that arrive and leave the island are made more expensive due to the excessive costs of transportation. It is estimated that in 1999, the costs added to merchandise, due to the transportation costs of the American merchant marine, was over $500 million. All nations need to regulate migratory movements for social reasons, security reasons, and economic reasons. The absolute authority in the matters of emigration to Puerto Rico rests with the federal government. Puerto Rico must admit all persons that the United States authorizes to reside in its territory, including colonies. In such a situation, we lose control over any measure of economic protection that could be established for ourselves and new emigrants. The fact that Puerto Rico must accept the dispositions of laws imposed by another country, without its consent, clearly demonstrates the colonial character of our relationship with the United States. In Puerto Rico, this is called "Estado Libre Asociado"(Free Associated State or Commonwealth). In international law, it is called "colony". Only 2 percent of the People of Puerto Rico support the independence for Puerto Rico It is clear that there is a democracy deficiency in the United States. Thousands of Puerto Ricans have shed their blood defending the United States in the name of freedom and democracy in all wars since World War I. Yet, they are not allowed to vote for their Commander-in-Chief. The people of Puerto Rico do not have voting representation in the U.S. Congress, even though all federal laws apply to them. Therefore, Puerto Ricans have no say in the making of the federal laws that apply to them. Likewise, the U.S. Supreme Court has absolute jurisdiction over Puerto Rico and all its rulings apply to Puerto Rico. However, the people of Puerto Rico do not have representation in the U.S. Senate to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominees. In all, the people of Puerto Rico are ultimately governed by an Executive whom they did not vote for, a Congress in which they are not represented in, and a Supreme Court whose justices they did not confirm. The 4 million U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico are disenfranchised citizens and are treated as second-class U.S. citizens. Are we going to tolerate this un-American and discriminatory treatment towards a particular group of U.S. Citizens? Are you willing to keep contributing $22 billion per year to support this unjust territorial status? After 112 years of service and sacrifice, it is time to add an additional star to our American constellation. Our sons and daughters have made their mark on the US honor roll. I invite you to find a state that has earned more Purple Hearts per capita in combat than our island. Our people are never afraid to defend the red, white, and blue. Being a colony of the United States has changed the lives of five generations and granted them a shot at democracy and an abridged version of the American Dream. But after 112 years of playing in the minor leagues, don't we deserve our shot at the big leagues?Marko: No Congressionally-mandated plebiscite has ever been held in Puerto Rico. more

Resolved Question: Religiously railing, it's too hard to follow, or even know, all the laws of the United States.?

And I certainly can't do it perfectly. So, since it can't really be done, can I just be exempt from all those laws through the grace of a supreme court justice or something?@ Arch, hey, most Supreme court Justices are dead. And most (except the ones that were daughters) were sons of somebody. How do you know they didn't die for all of us, to give us grace? more

Voting Question: Should the USSC be representative of the population?

Should there be an open motive to make the justices on the United States Supreme Court at least somewhat representative of the greater population in the US? I ask this because with Kagan, all the justices will have either been from Harvard or Yale law school, and five will have been from New York. No one is from the Midwest or West. When they're all originally from the high class East Coast schools/areas, can we truly believe that they know the actual problems faced in Middle-Class America? Or Should the Supreme Court remain an aristocracy? more

Resolved Question: Liberals. Why does Federal laws allow for racial profiling but Arizona's laws protects against that?

In 1975, the supreme court allowed immigration officers to profile. So what do you libs have to say about that now? http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=422&invol=873 more

Resolved Question: The difference between federal Immigration Law and Arizona immigration law?

Federal Immigration laws allow for racial profiling, Arizona's doesnt Federal Immigration law allows people to be stopped for just walking down the street, Arizona's doesnt Federal immigration law is more harsh than arizona immigration law http://news-political.com/2010/04/30/ari… http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=422&invol=873 Supreme court voted unanimously in 1975 that Federal agents are allowed to profile. Arizona law stops that. more

Voting Question: Help with government?

a. Traditional theories of judicial review hold that neutral or principled grounds are the only legitimate bases for judicial decisions and reject political motives in judicial decision-making. Do you believe this is true? Do you see principled v. political motives in important U.S. Supreme Court constitutional decisions which overturn laws passed by legislatures (such as restrictions on gun ownership, or marijuana use)? more

Resolved Question: Was the supreme court being racist in their ruling of Muhler v. Mena (2005)?

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1423 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1423.ZS.html more

Resolved Question: Why is Obama looking into suing AZ over their new law?

When the AZ law is much less intrusive. The AZ law requires that the police have a reasonable suspicion before stopping or questioning where as federal law upheld by an unanimous decision states that their has to be no reasonable suspicion or legal interaction between the suspect and Federal LEO to question a person about their immigration status. Why isn't he looking into suing himself for the federal law in place? The Supreme Court has already ruled that, under federal law, cops can pull you over for no reason and demand to see your immigration papers. Under Arizona's law, they need reasonable suspicion."by the way K1surfer do you know thatunder federal law each green card holder is required to carry their proof of legal immigration on them at all times and agree to do so when they apply for a green card? more

Resolved Question: Will AZ leg be a gold standard taught in universities of state exercising their right to control immigration?

Since the AZ leg was so beautifully constructed and amended will it be the gold standard in university to teach students how states can exercise rights provided to them by the Constitution? http://www.cis.org/vaughan/Appeals-Court-Rules-Favorably 2005 Supreme Court decision in Muehler v. Mena, "that a police officer does not need independent reasonable suspicion to question an individual about her immigration status" in the context of a legitimate law enforcement action http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/05/03/immigration-foreign-affairs-and-the-constitution/ foreign affairs is exclusively the province of the federal government is commonly asserted. But it is a myth – at least if one respects the Constitution’s text and original understanding -Rob Natelson is Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Montana and a nationally-known expert on the American Founding. more

Voting Question: Have you read the California Immigration Bill... is it Bullet Proof also?

California Penal Code Section 834b http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/834b.html (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws. (b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following: (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status. (2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States. (3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity. (c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited. How soon will it be enforced.. and will it pass the Supreme Court as the Arizona Law will? more

Voting Question: What is Rand Paul's position on Federal Child Labor laws? Was that a Federal Government overstep as well?

"The first child labor bill, the Keating-Owen bill of 1916... and used the government's ability to regulate interstate commerce to regulate child labor.... passed by Congress and signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional in Hammer v. Dagenhart 247 U.S. 251 (1918) because it overstepped the purpose of the government's powers to regulate interstate commerce... A second child labor bill was passed in December of 1918 as part of the Revenue Act of 1919 (also called the Child Labor Tax Law). It also took an indirect route to regulate child labor, this time by using the government's power to levy taxes. It too, was soon found to be unconstitutional in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Company 259 U.S. 20 (1922). The Court reasoned that “The power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce does not extend to curbing the power of the states to regulate local trade.”" http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=59 more

Open Question: Mexico's and Americans Immigration laws?

We already know that Mexico does not approve of our immigration laws, would they approve if we use their immigration laws?? If we decided to use theirs he must be OK with it as it is theirs, right?? Here is the Mexican immigration law.::: At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are: •in the country legally; •have the means to sustain themselves economically; •not destined to be burdens on society; •of economic and social benefit to society; •of good character and have no criminal records; and •contributors to the general well-being of the nation. The law also ensures that: •immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor; •foreign visitors do not violate their visa status; •foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics; •foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported; •foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported; •those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison. Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens — and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Población, or General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country’s immigration policy. It is an interesting law — and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico. If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry. We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. [1] Now let’s look at Mexico’s main immigration law. Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society: •Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32) •Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34) •Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37) •The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38) Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country: •Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73) •A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86) •A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91). Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned: •Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116) •Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116) Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons: •Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117) •Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118) •Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned. Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says, •“A penalty of up to two years in prison  more

Resolved Question: Do any know about the judgement passed by the supreme court of india?

I want some information regarding law guys!! So, if you get something please let me know. I want to know that how much content of sulphur is allowed by the supreme court of india to be used in the fuel (like coal, light diesel oil, etc). Actually, the supreme court of india had made a judgement that to stop the excessive emission of SO2 (sulphur dioxide) so they have fixed some sulphur content limit for the Industries in their fuel, to stop the pollution levels.... Hope something will I get regarding the topic.....Have a nice day :) more

Resolved Question: so what do the libs think of the US supreme court ruling............................?

that cops can pull people over for no reason and ask for immigration status? if this is true then that means the AZ law give more protection then Federal law. i got a good source. im looking for the link now. more

Resolved Question: The U.S. Supreme Court is the final authority as to the constitutionality of any federal or state law.?

true or false more

Resolved Question: Is the United States a real democracy?

The Oldest Colony in the World: Puerto Rico... Facts: On July 25, 1898, during the Spanish-American War, Puerto Rico was invaded by the United States The People of Puerto Rico are US citizens since 1917 The citizens of Puerto Rico pay full Medicare payroll taxes but their benefits are capped at 30% of the national average. It is clear that there is a democracy deficiency in the United States. Thousands of Puerto Ricans have shed their blood defending the United States in the name of freedom and democracy in all wars since World War I. Yet, they are not allowed to vote for their Commander-in-Chief. The people of Puerto Rico do not have voting representation in the U.S. Congress, even though all federal laws apply to them. Therefore, Puerto Ricans have no say in the making of the federal laws that apply to them. Likewise, the U.S. Supreme Court has absolute jurisdiction over Puerto Rico and all its rulings apply to Puerto Rico. However, the people of Puerto Rico do not have representation in the U.S. Senate to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominees. In all, the people of Puerto Rico are ultimately governed by an Executive whom they did not vote for, a Congress in which they are not represented in, and a Supreme Court whose justices they did not confirm. The 4 million U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico are disenfranchised citizens and are treated as second-class U.S. citizens. Are we going to tolerate this un-American and discriminatory treatment towards a particular group of U.S. Citizens? Are you willing to keep contributing $22 billion per year to support this unjust territorial status? After 112 years of service and sacrifice, it is time to add an additional star to our American constellation. Our sons and daughters have made their mark on the US honor roll. I invite you to find a state that has earned more Purple Hearts per capita in combat than our island. Our people are never afraid to defend the red, white, and blue. Being a colony of the United States has changed the lives of five generations and granted them a shot at democracy and an abridged version of the American Dream. But after 112 years of playing in the minor leagues, don't we deserve our shot at the big leagues? PD: Only 2 percent of the People of Puerto Rico support the independence for Puerto RicoHonesty: Mississippi has a much lower median income than the US average, and likely takes up billions of federal dollars in social welfare programs, I have yet to hear anyone object to Mississippi’s statehood. We Are U.S. Citizens too...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvOLT7fjQ3Q more

Voting Question: why are the pro illegal invaders only now flipping out and why only over the AZ law?

the Federal law that has been in place for decades and passed the Supreme court 9-0 after being challenged in 2005 allows an officer to stop anyone at anytime and ask for proof that a person is in the US legally, the AZ law requires that an officer has to have made legal contact with someone for a different unrelated reason before asking someone for proof they are in the US legally so why have the pro illegal/criminal invaders never protest in the past, why are they flipping out over the AZ law and not flipping out over the Federal law? more

Resolved Question: Did the Civil Rights Act wrongly restrict the freedom of people to discriminate?

I thought our Nation settled this issue over 40 years ago. The Supreme Court has certainly settled it as a matter of law. But it seems some want to re-open the question. OK - let's debate it.I did look up 'ultra vires'. Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court went beyond its authority in affirming the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act?Are you saying the Civil Rights Act would have been constitutional if it had been a constitutional amendment. Why can't you accept the Supreme Court's many rulings that it is constitutional as it was passed? more

Resolved Question: Is the Federal law on immigration not tougher than Arizona law?

Acording to a segment on FOX News, in 2005, the Supreme Court ruled 9 - 0 in the Muehler vs. Mena case "The officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date and place of birth, or immigration status.” The Arizona law requires reasonable suspicion. The federal law does not. So what problem do people have with the AZ law? The case and this language is referenced in any number of places on the internet. more

Resolved Question: What has your religion done to preserve civil liberties in the courts of U.S. or other countries?

To be fair I am listing what mine has done too. In the United States and several other countries, the legal struggles of the Jehovah's Witnesses have yielded some of the most important judicial decisions regarding freedom of religion, press and speech. The resulting litigation has helped to define civil liberties case law in the United States and in most Western societies.[1] Former Supreme Court Justice Harlan Stone jokingly suggested "The Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties."[2] "Like it or not," observed American author and editor Irving Dilliard, "Jehovah's Witnesses have done more to help preserve our freedoms than any other religious group." "The cases that the Witnesses were involved in formed the bedrock of 1st Amendment protections for all citizens," said Paul Polidoro, a lawyer who argued the Watchtower Society's case before the Supreme Court in February 2002. "These cases were a good vehicle for the courts to address the protections that were to be accorded free speech, the free press and free exercise of religion. In addition, the cases marked the emergence of individual rights as an issue within the U.S. court system."Is it one upmanship to know the history of ones faith, good or bad? Many on this sight openly attack my faith and yet few really know how much of their own freedoms have been defended, as a result of opposition to my beliefs. We have gone to court repeatedly to defend the freedom to practice religion, and to defend the right to choose medical treatment as well. When asked why one supports something one should be able to show conclusively that when push comes to shove your faith stands it's ground for right principles, that benefit all, not just a select few. more

Resolved Question: The Supreme Court bases a decision on a U.N treaty that was never signed by the US?

The supreme court is supposed to base its decisions on our constitution, Not on Unsigned treaties or laws of other countries!!! http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=155617 more

Resolved Question: Which Supreme Court decision involved the most contrived legal contortion in your opinion?

I'm not talking about decisions with which you simply disagree. There are many of those, but at least most were decided using an application of the law which doesn't require one to squint really hard and turn one's head askance in order to follow the justices' reasoning. I'm talking about the ones in which the justices bent the living bejeezus out of a Constitutional clause or existing case law in order to make it fit what they wanted their decision to ultimately be. My own personal choice would have to be Katzenbach v. McClung, in which the court effectively outlawed racial discrimination in restaurants. While I'm not a big fan of actual discrimination, the reason I find this decision to be SO egregiously twisted is because the justices used the Interstate Commerce Clause in order to make their decision. They basically held that because some of the food items served in the restaurant came from out of state, Congress had the power to ban the practice. Even if you agree with the ultimate goal of ending discrimination, you almost have to admit that was one contorted means of arriving at the preferred end, don't you?j p: Wow, I just looked that one up. Tortured logic is right! more

Resolved Question: Why are all the Supreme Court justices from Harvard or Yale law school?

Not trying to suggest a secret society of course. more