> The iconic image of the lone (wind-blown dwarf pine) tree > at the beach in Carmel, California has been copyrighted > for years. You could not legally photograph that tree
Naturally occurring objects can't be copyrighted. Only the author of a work can hold the copyright on it, and no human was the "author" of that tree. I suppose God could claim copyright on the tree (if said God actually exists).
> Setting aside the First Amendment issue, ever heard of extradition?
One can only be extradited for violating a law in the requesting jurisdiction.
In the above example, as a Florida citizen, located in Florida, I am not legally required to follow Utah's laws, no matter how much Utah may desire otherwise, therefore there's nothing upon which to base extradition, and my own state's attorney can't legally comply with any extradition request from Utah.
> New York state legislators apparently think the state's > so cosmopolitan it may as well be Europe.
It's worse that Europe. Europe only requires the de-listing of articles from search engines so that the information isn't so easy to find. This NY law apparently requires the web sites hosting the actual content to take down anything someone doesn't like.
It's the difference between Europe requiring Google to de-list a TechDirt article from its search results, and NY requiring TechDirt to take down the actual article itself.
"A person is guilty of electronic communication harassment and subject to prosecution in the jurisdiction where the communication originated or was received if with intent to intimidate..."
Here we apparently have another state that thinks its legislature has the power to bind the whole country to its will.
If I'm a Florida citizen, in Florida, I can to post to the internet without having to worry about whatever crazy laws Utah has passed. Utah can't tell me what I can and can't post to the internet, nor can it hold me responsible for violating its nutty laws just because someone in Utah was able to see my post.
Once again, we have a state that either thinks it can legislate for the whole nation (or world), or doesn't realize that this law will only apply within its boundaries. If someone from Oklahoma makes the "offending comment", this law will be useless in unmasking them because people in Oklahoma (or anywhere else) don't have to abide by acts of the Texas Legislature.
California receives about 20% of its water from the Colorado River, which comes from out of state. If it secedes, it will no longer have access to that water and its already-extreme drought will suddenly become a national emergency. Losing access to the Colorado River would put a tremendous strain on Southern California municipal and agricultural water districts, not to mention the vast farmland in the Imperial Valley.
Then there's the matter of defense. California would have to start funding it's own national defense by itself. Other than the state national guard, the federal government would remove all of its troops and equipment long before secession would be official, so it would have to hope that its exes in the American government would allow it to contract with the American defense industry to buy replacement equipment and/or that America will continue to defend California the way we do Canada. Either way, it's no small problem to solve.
> Not even sure how you can make such a dumb claim without > realizing how dumb it is. Nobody is fighting against > deporting people who have committed robbery, rape, murder > or other serious crimes. I can't believe that has to be > explained.
You obviously haven't been paying attention, because yes, they are.
Why reach all the way back to the Bush Administration for examples of people who were fine with executive overreach when their guy was in power, but not anymore?
Remember Obama and his pen and phone, who said he would act unilaterally if Congress wouldn't do what he wanted them to? Plenty of Democrats were just fine with that. The same Democrats who are now having kittens over Trump using that same pen and phone.
> The minute you get behind the wheel of your vehicle, your > 4th Amendment protections take a nosedive. Having a > vehicle on a public street makes everything > viewed through the windows a perfectly acceptable > warrantless search.
You say that like it's a bad thing or that it should be otherwise.
Why should the police need a warrant to look through a car window and see the murder weapon on the back seat? If it's publicly visible from a public place, it's fair game, whether it's in your car or sitting on your front lawn.
Put another way, it's absurd to say people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in things that the general public can see on a city street.
> Nothing bad at all would happen to the US economy if the US > were to lose direct access to those ports.
Secession would be a lot worse for CA's economy than the other way around. The vast majority of the tax base would up and leave because most people of means will prefer to keep their U.S. citizenship. That means moving elsewhere. Even all those mouthy celebrities who constantly threaten to move to another country if their preferred candidate loses an election wouldn't stay behind. (Ever notice they never actually move when their candidate loses?)
That leaves behind who? The poor and the illegals, all of whom have their hands out demanding government benefits. The rich and middle class have left, leaving no source of revenue to meet the demands of millions who think they're entitled to free stuff. Won't be long until the cities are burning.
In the meantime, the U.S. still has the Port of Seattle to bring in shipping from the Pacific.
> legal non-American immigrants are related to undocumented immigrants, > and breaking up families is messy.
The government is breaking up their families merely by enforcing its laws. *They* are breaking up their own families by placing them in a situation where it could happen. They came here knowing it was against the law and if they were caught, they could be deported, so if that results in a separated family, that's on them.
When a guy robs a bank and gets caught, we don't say it's the government's fault for breaking up his family when it sends him to prison. We say it's the bank robber's fault for committing the crime that put him in that position.