Don't most federal judges sit for life? I don't see ten years being that bad when you compare it to that standard although, I'd prefer that FISC judges go through the same appointment/confirmation process that other federal court judges go through.
I want to support this site so, I browse it with my ad-blocker off. However, the auto-playing Wall Street Journal video ads with sound are not a good idea. Especially when there are two on the same page. I recently killed a rootkit that caused overlapping video ads to constantly play in a hidden window on a customers computer. For a second, I thought that I'd caught something >_
Well, my representative [Dan Kildee (D-MI)] voted yea so I'm happy and will be sending a supportive e-mail. It's too bad that Michigan's delegation split though. With both Amash, a Republican, and Conyers, a Democrat, both from Michigan and both sponsoring this amendment I would have thought that my states delegation would have been all over this one.
Re: Re: Well That Certainly Explains the "No Rooting" Stance
It's still an issue since there are a number of people who've had me root their phones for them since they don't understand how to do it but they do want to get rid of some of the otherwise irremovable(sp?) crap-ware on the thing. Since I've never asked for any money I'm pretty sure that I'm still fine doing it but, if they own the device, why should the government care what they have done to it?
Their constituents keep reelecting them so, unless they are found to have broken a law concerning their office, they can't be impeached. Add to that the fact that the House of Representatives would have to hold the vote impeaching any federally elected official and the Senate would have to actually try said individuals for their alleged crimes and you will find that anything short of providing Iran with American nuclear access codes probably won't end in removal from office as long as Republicans control one house and Democrats control the other.
The minor was above the age of consent but still a student of hers. That makes it potentially illegal depending on the state but not always if said teacher didn't have a direct position of authority over that student (i.e. didn't have the student in any classes). Long story short, it's complicated.
This is especially funny since I know that at least KickassTorrents actually doesn't ignore DMCA takedown notices. Just have the torrent files removed from the indexing site. I'll bet that 2 more will pop up in their place but that's more effective than going after Google who is, in this case, an indexer of indexers of pointers to infringing files.
The family reunion on my mothers side generally includes everyone descended from my maternal grandmothers, maternal grandmothers, mother. That's quite a few people once you add in spouses, significant others, and friends. I know it's regularly more than 100 people though.
I think you may have misunderstood the thing in question here. The argument isn't over whether a motel has the right to hand over your information to law enforcement agencies without requiring a warrant; the argument is over whether law enforcement agencies can require that motels hand over said information without a warrant. Regardless of the outcome of this case, a motel would still be allowed to give your information to law enforcement willingly if they wished to do so.
Why not just directly sell the (lossless compressed) FLAC files to the customers and skip the relatively expensive disc pressing part of the problem.
Although, I know the answer to this question. If you sell studio quality lossless audio, then people never have to re-buy for a new format. I wonder what percentage of the record industries revenue for the last three decades have come from people buying music they already owned in new formats?
Even if, 'we the people' are actually that stupid, the argument is that the fourth amendment doesn't allow for the levels of surveillance currently being performed by the American government. Therefore, the 'will of the people', as defined by you above, would say that this surveillance program never should have existed to be revealed in the first place.
It's too bad that it would be nearly impossible to prove standing or injury, unless the government REALLY screws up, to try and get these programs overturned in the federal court system.
The problem isn't with singing the song on Mars. The problems start when you broadcast video of the landing, and subsequent singing, back here on Earth. Anyone broadcasting said video on Earth, in countries where the copyright is valid, could be sued for infringement.
On topic: As long as you can do the job you shouldn't be forced to retire. If this judge is found to be incapable of performing his duties then maybe he should be removed, otherwise, his age should have nothing to do with it.
Slightly off topic: Please don't correct other people's spelling with incorrect spelling of your own. It's spelled 'ageism'.
Unfortunately, the answer is likely both. The thing is, it is quite possible that some of the potential modifications could be dangerous so many countries require testing to prove the safety of the modified foods. This testing is expensive so, to protect their profits, the companies that produce GM seeds pay for the tests themselves, protect the output of this testing as trade secrets, and turn over the results to the pertinent government agencies so that farmers that buy their seeds can export at will. The problem here is, number one, the fact that after the patents expire these big companies have no further incentive to keep testing the products covered by expired patents and number two, the fact that these biosafety examinations are required on a recurring basis.
Honestly, I don't see why the re-authorization is required. If a genomic sequence has been approved then it can't have changed. If something has changed then doesn't that mean that the genome of the plant has changed, through either mutation or cross-pollination, and therefore would require a separate authorization anyway?
The way regulations work today, the specific genetic code of that particular harvest must be approved to be allowed to import it into certain countries. Right now the patent owners are handling that for their GM crops and since they don't allow cross-breeding, it is known that the crops that have their IP in them are compliant. The problem appears when the patents start expiring and suddenly parts of these crops are no longer having their periodic biosafety checks handled by the large corporations and now each exporter needs to deal with the massive bureaucracy that has grown up around the import/export of GM crops.
I accept that GM items, especially items for human consumption, need to be checked for safety but, for the system to be so convoluted that it requires biosafety checks whose costs can't be borne by anyone without millions of dollars to spend is quite a large problem.
My state (Michigan) actually has a 'use' tax that is the same amount as our state sales tax (6.0%). You are supposed to list on your state income tax forms any purchases that you made while present in the state from retailers that didn't charge you sales tax and pay that amount then. I don't know many non-business owners or accountants who even know about this tax let alone pay it.
The issue with this is the fact that the constitution doesn't forbid the states from levying taxes. This means that the federal government can't pass a law stating that the states cannot levy a sales tax. A state can say that its counties/cities cannot levy local sales tax but they often don't. For example in Chicago, IL the general sales tax is 9.25%. The state of Illinois charges 6.25%, Cook County charges 1.75%, and the city of Chicago charges 1.25%. It was higher but it's dropped for the last couple years. That's probably the most complicated example but it's a result of the fact that the United States was built as a union of sovereign states and even though many of those features have since gone by the wayside, many of the powers that other western governments maintain at the federal level devolve to the states since the 10th Amendment states (in full), "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So, technically, if the Constitution doesn't say that the federal government can do something, it can't.
There is an interstate commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;) that gets used, quite often actually, to grant the government the right to do things outside the specific scope of the Constitution but I don't think that forbidding the states from levying a sales tax on business that occurs within their borders would fall inside of that clause.