In the US, a representative democracy, people typically want to vote for a representative (here the Pres.) who shares their views on issues. The US isn’t going to have a national referendum on Gaza where the people can directly vote.
What ever your view point(s) your time to vote on your issue(s) is during a presidential or midterm election.
The friend of certainty is time. One day perhaps then we won’t even call ourselves Americans. I doubt the 1860s will happen again anytime soon. Maybe something closer in scale to Blair Mountain.
Look to history. We’ve had two. Look at the words explaining the necessity of independence in the declaration of independence. Those were not hollow words but detailed a long series of abuses. Then look to the causes of the Civil War. A perfidious institution anathematic to the very core ideal of the nation, that all men are created equal.
Our times doubtless have our problems but the do not meet nearly the standard set in the past.
wild misinformation ads would be OK too…
Yes. Because the government is not the supreme arbiter of truth. If someone wants to put out an advert saying the sky is yellow they can. Our society functions on the principle that an open market of ideas will result in the best ideas prospering while a closed market of ideas would stifle new better ideas.
No need 1A speaks to that:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
No need. America is a nation who’s founder where largely of one religion but they ensured that no one religion should assert itself over others.
And what crime passed by the federal legislature did they commit that wasn’t in violation of the constitution (including BoR) in your opinion? Last I checked 1A is still there.
I’d say pretty good. How often do you see the federal government passing a law that violates the rights of the American people? And when it does how often can you say that there isn’t a constitutional violation in that law?
Additionally you say that like we don’t enjoy many rights that our global peers don’t. Like the right to a trial by jury in civil matters, to confront your accusor in a criminal trial, the many strict protections we have on searches, or the protections on political speech.
So many of the rights that document protect people take as granted. Most every violation of one of those rights can be declared to be because we have yet to enumerate that right or we haven’t followed the rules the constitution imposed on our government.
Having faith in politicians and liking a document designed to ensure the preservation of human rights & liberties are two different things.
and gets updates automatically when moving.
In any good democracy the government doesn’t know where you moved to until you tell them. Hence the need.
Up until the 1880s pretty much all Americans ballots weren’t private. Some states still technically aren’t private.
“the US” doesn’t narrow it down much. I kinda assumed that much. What really matters if which one of the 50+ legal systems in the US he is subject to. And which courthouse he is going to.
This is going to 100% be a state law matter, unless he lives somewhere like D.C. or Puerto Rico which aren’t states but fall under federal jurisdiction.
We have no clue where you are so we can’t give any good advice. For all we know you live in Elbonia and driving without a license gets you the guillotine.
But
Show up ~30 minutes early, there will likely be metal detectors and a line at them. If you are in line be ready when you get up front, if you need to empty your pockets do that before you are at the detector. This makes it faster for everyone.
Showing up early will also give you time to find your courtroom in the building. It also will let you watch the court for a few minutes before your time to shine.
Turn your phone off. Court house rules might require you leave it outside.
Dress appropriately, a polo should be fine. Any collared shirt tucked in with pants and closed toed shoes will show you put some effort into dressing yourself. No hats unless you’ve got to for your religion.
It’s the judge’s courtroom don’t interrupt them. Don’t lie. And being on your best behavior starts the moment you step onto the lot not when you enter the room, be polite to court staff as well.
Read the ticket front and back for specific instructions. Check the court website to see if there’s any announcements that you should be aware of (like local rules).
Don’t listen to other people’s advice on how you should plead. We don’t know the facts of your case. Most people here aren’t lawyers. Nothing here is legal advice.
Why am I just now finding out Antarctica has foliage? What the hell Blue Planet and David Attenborough? This is big. Are we looking at normal plants? Or have we got special antarctic plants. It says lichen and moss. But how far back do they evolutionary diverge? Do these fellas have some sort of adaptation that helps them live in their niche?
Exactly. People forget this about our appellate courts too often. For every can they hear there will be much more lower trial courts hear and will try and relate to the higher court’s case. An appellate court trying to solve every case in front of them in the most fair way ensures more cases will end unfairly.
Tim, dude, seriously. Actively arguing that it is appropriate to preferential treatment or negative treatment towards people on the basis of race. While claiming a law that shows no favors to anyone on the basis of race is like the words of hate groups.
There’s a broad distinction between letting people express themselves in their own free time and supporting systemic race based discrimination. Nobody is stopping straight people from going out and expressing themselves.
You are clearly the one with the bad faith stance. Seriously stop once, and in a moment of humility consider if it is you who might be wrong.
I would recommend you read his concurrence before you make comments as to the nature of his argument. I get it’s a lengthy one at 58 pages but as you seem to suggest in your comment strawmanning people in not a good practice.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
But if that’s too long I’ll try and summarize with a few lines from it.
“The Constitution abhors classifications based on race, not only because those classifications can harm favored races or are based on illegitimate motives, but also because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all.”
“enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law.”
““[o]ur Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 559 (1896) (Harlan, J., dissenting).”
And here’s the reading of a portion:
https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts13/opinion_announcement_audio/25581
Just as it is wrong for white people to benefit from preferential treatment over black people who were detrimented (such as under slavery or Jim Crow). It is wrong for black people to benefit from preferential treatment over asian people who were detrimented (such as under Japanese interment or the Chinese exclusion act).
CA banned race base admission in the '90s in favor of a system that guaranteed admissions to top percentile students.
Post Students for Fair Admissions, schools can’t use race alone as a plus or minus nation wide. Like California has been doing it for the past 3 decades.
Universities’ recent experiences confirm the efficacy of a colorblind rule. To start, universities prohibited from engaging in racial discrimination by state law continue to enroll racially diverse classes by race-neutral means. For example, the University of California purportedly recently admitted its “most diverse undergraduate class ever,” despite California’s ban on racial preferences.
(THOMAS, J., concurring) (arguing universities can consider “[r]ace-neutral policies” similar to those adopted in States such as California and Michigan, and that universities can consider “status as a first-generation college applicant,” “financial means,” and “generational inheritance or otherwise”)
Thomas goes on and calls out the issue legacy admissions in his lengthy concurrence.
Worse, the classifications that JUSTICE JACKSON draws are themselves race-based stereotypes. She focuses on two hypothetical applicants, John and James, competing for admission to UNC. John is a white, seventh-generation legacy at the school, while James is black and would be the first in his family to attend UNC. Post, at 3. JUSTICE JACKSON argues that race-conscious admission programs are necessary to adequately compare the two applicants. As an initial matter, it is not clear why James’s race is the only factor that could encourage UNC to admit him; his status as a first-generation college applicant seems to contextualize his application. But, setting that aside, why is it that John should be judged based on the actions of his great-great-great-grandparents?
Not sure on all the specifics of CA’s admittance structure, beyond they banned race base admission in the '90s in favor of a system that guaranteed admissions to top percentile students.
But post Students for Fair Admissions DEI measures are still ok. Schools can’t use race alone as a plus or minus but they may choose to favor those from disadvantaged neighborhoods, 1st generation college students, and even good essays that share someone’s experience being a race.
The chances of that happening to the average person are close to zero.
That’s the whole point. People don’t watch the news to hear “dog bites man” they watch it to hear “man bites dog”.
No one wants to watch a 2-3 hr long movie about someone’s regular Tuesday at the office they want to watch something that doesn’t happen everyday like an adventure, the perfect couple meeting, or the world ending.
No one argues other. But you rebuke the notion that the war on drugs has any significance on the broader topic. Basing opinions on falsities.
In other words:
it seems fairly dishonest, especially since
schools represent a vast minority of mass killings. Not to mention your baseless assertion that violence in schools must have no relationship to the war on drugs. As if the gangs that move them don’t groom children to sell them for them.
Because most haven’t I will actually answer the call of the question. Voting is perhaps the most important way one can voice their opinion. And carries more effect than most words the average man or woman can utter.
The largest argument against these types of stances is that it will create a spoiler effect. This usually operates on the premise that a vote to a candidate is owed and not earned and or that it is impossible to achieve a different outcome besides one of the two establishment candidates. This second premise being the results of people who decry voting 3rd party as useless based on a restriction with no physical or legal basis imposed on our society by our society. There’s nothing stopping people from electing anyone else on the ballot.
If you can acknowledge that we as a society have this power the idea of accepting a lesser evil is weakened. If you vote for a lesser evil you perpetuate the broken system you hate. In your example Gaza, if someone feels that the issue is so important it merits a principled stance how can they not take the stance?
It’s a matter of pragmatism vs principles.