Then it would be up to a competent attorney to sue the arresting officer under 42 usc 1983 civil actions for deprivations of rights. The law provided for reasonable attorney fees to be paid by a defendant who violated your civil rights. The nice thing is that even though your suing the officer who violated your civil rights they are usually covered by an insurance policy so it's technically not an asset poor officer paying the judgement
Except that under the doctrine of qualified immunity that case would be thrown out for an infinite number of tiny reasons. Check out the Institute for Justice for a good run down based on cases they've fought.
> Then it would be up to a competent attorney to sue the arresting officer under 42 usc 1983 civil actions for deprivations of rights. The law provided for reasonable attorney fees to be paid by a defendant who violated your civil rights
So you somehow feel better about your rights being deprived because "sue everyone". In the mean time the authorities have effectively shut down the protest, that was perfectly legal. But they stopped it anyway. So it achieved nothing, and the 'right to assemble' is a myth.
> The nice thing is that even though your suing the officer who violated your civil rights they are usually covered by an insurance policy so it's technically not an asset poor officer paying the judgement
Ah, the true American dream. Sue someone for a ton of money, and you don't even have to feel bad about it because it's not even their money!
You forgot the part where it's not only not their money, but in fact our money.
How public officials get "punished" is one of my biggest issues. We are right now holding them to a lower standard whereas we should hold them to a much higher standard. If a public official, especially in law enforcement, commits a crime it's a much bigger problem because it undermined the entire system beyond just the crime itself. This should result in draconic punishments for even small crimes.
Better that then the successful plaintiff being left holding the bag when their civil rights are horrifically violated. Excessive force cases can and do result in death and disability not including whatever mental trauma. Better the people that the state that employs law enforcement bear the cost associated with their actions, then victims of civil rights violations are unable to collect against a bankrupt defendant.
It is extremely sad and scary that any intelligent person would actually suggest using violence and guns against the US government to defend rights citizens supposedly already have.
You're talking about starting a civil war that will likely result in the brutal and horrible deaths of tens of millions of civilians, the collapse of the US economy and likely that would drag some others down too. For a country that is supposedly one of the greatest on the planet, things don't seem to be going so well.
Dunkin Donuts and Exxon provide all of the land, buildings, vehicles and materials their employees use to conduct business and turn a profit.
Uber and Lyft not so much
More than half of Exxon's trucking is not company owned. All their filling stations are not company owned at this point (I believe that's accurate). The overwhelming majority of Dunkin locations are franchised as well. I don't care how they split the money up; I only care whether what they offer is worth the price they're asking to me.
A very large part of the prison population across the country comes from people convicted of a felony, given probation, and being kicked off of probation. The number 1 way to get kicked off probation is failing a drug test. The war on drugs led to the massive prison expansion since 1972 in the usa
And conveniently, mostly to the kind of communities like blacks and latinos more likely to use some cheapo drugs, and not to the kind of communities (basically rich white people) using the expensive shit (basically coke, which in the 70s and 80s was everywhere)...
You COULD get much higher ratios of CBD and THC in this format if the product is not chopped to hell in back. The issue with black market carts is that it is hard to tell whether it is the genuine article with a visual inspection or by tasting the product. It's much easier with the actual flower. In theory the liquid is more potent, in practice without regulation not so much
In order for the government to restrict a right under the Constitution they must have a compelling government interest, and they must write the law in a way that is narrowily tailored in a way that accomplishes the government goal in the least restrictive way over that person Constitutional right.
That's very different from saying "to restrict a right it must be effective". Many effective laws have been struck down as not narrowly tailored. And very often narrow tailoring will hamper the effectiveness.
> That's very different from saying "to restrict a right it must be effective".
No, it says exactly that.
It is very different than saying “If a law restricting a right is effective, it is Constitutional”, which is not the same as “to restrict a right, it must be effective” (one states a sufficient condition, the other a necessary one.) Nevertheless,being effective is a relevant differentiator between one proposed restriction and another that explains why they might be seen differently Constitutionally, as while a law which is effective at serving some government interest may be unconstitutional, one which is not is almost by definition is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
The city is empowered to make the change. The court are empowered to overturn it as an unconditional restrictions on our liberty. Specificially the fourth amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things .
The government can limit speech if they have a compelling reason (the governments reasoning outweighs the persons freedom of speech, think yelling fire in a crowded theater). If the government has a compelling reason they can only limit the speech in the most narrowly tailored way to accomplish their goal and still allow the most freedom of speech possible.
TL;DR: during WW1, Socialist Party members protested against the war, and particularly against the draft. As part of those protests, they handed out leaflets that encouraged those eligible to resist the draft. The government cracked down on it, and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government, likening the action to "shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic".
Thankfully, the present standard is "imminent lawless action" instead, which is a far higher bar for the government to meet if it wants to regulate speech.
For one we are a Republic not a democracy. If we were a pure democracy its arguable whether we would be in better or worse shape. If we were a Republic as our constitution was drafted, prior to the supreme court gutting state and individual liberties with the commerce clause,etc. I think we would be in much better shape
What is the purpose of your first sentence? Colloquially we speak of democracy as being something with representation that is elected with a large majority of the adult population being eligible to vote. Surely you know this so I can't figure what the point of being so pedantic is. Your assertion in the last sentence certainly needs more evidence to support it. As it stands it's unlikely to sway anyone and quite frankly paints a picture of you being a fanatic. This is especially so since the Commerce Clause was the justification for the Civil Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act greatly increased individual liberties.
