If our nation takes on debt now that will have to be paid by gen z later isn&#39;t that taxation without representation? We have representatives but gen z does not. How is it fair to spend their money before they are even old enough to have a say? Was the idea of pushing debt onto future generations so unthinkable that it is a constitutional blind spot?
No &quot;No taxation without representation!&quot; was a slogan of the US war of independence, but it was never put into the Constitution. Indeed, the residents of the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico now pay Federal income tax, but are not represented in the Congress that sets the taxes. National debt has some of the same economic effects of a tax, but it is not a tax in form nor in constitutional law. Constitutional limits on tax legislation (such as the rule against unapportioned direct taxes) do not apply to congressional borrowing. &quot;Representation&quot;, in the sense you mean, has never been applied to representatives of future generations, or even of people not yet of voting age. Was the idea of pushing debt onto future generations so unthinkable that it is a constitutional blind spot? Quite the reverse. Borrowing was initiated quite early, while many of the framers were still in government. In several places in the Federalist Papers, Hamilton emphasized the need for an unlimited power to tax, for, among other purposes, paying any national debts, and made it clear that such debts would be incurred, from time to time. See particularly Nos 30 and 41. In The Federalist No 30 Hamilton wrote: In the modern system of war, nations the most wealthy are obliged to have recourse to large loans. A country so little opulent as ours must feel this necessity in a much stronger degree. But who would lend to a government that prefaced its overtures for borrowing by an act which demonstrated that no reliance could be placed on the steadiness of its measures for paying? The loans it might be able to procure would be as limited in their extent as burdensome in their conditions. This is part of a longer argument to the effect that a lack of power by the Federal Government to levy individual taxes would be disastrous. Here Hamilton certainly seems to contemplate the Federal government borrowing in case of war or other emergency, and repaying such loans by future taxes. In The Federalist No 41 Madison wrote; The powers falling within the FIRST class [Security against foreign danger] are those of declaring war and granting letters of marque; of providing armies and fleets; of regulating and calling forth the militia; of levying and borrowing money. Security against foreign danger is one of the primitive objects of civil society. It is an avowed and essential object of the American Union. ... If a federal Constitution could chain the ambition or set bounds to the exertions of all other nations, then indeed might it prudently chain the discretion of its own government, and set bounds to the exertions for its own safety. This again seems to contemplate an unlimited power of borrowing money by the government (or limited only by its available credit) to be repaid from taxes. Thus at least two of the founders considered this issue, and it was in now way part of a &quot;blind spot&quot;. When he became the first Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton embarked on his famous program of encouraging manufactures, funding needed &quot;improvements&quot; (of roads and harbors, in particular) largely by borrowing. These proposals were openly, widely, and heatedly debated both in Congress and out of it, before Congress authorized them. The argument that such debts would have to be repaid out of future tax revenue was indeed advanced, although not, as far as I know, precisely in the terms this question uses. But the issue was generally considered by the public, which was in no way blind to the future effects of present borrowing by the government. It was not a later innovation, unthoguht-of by the founders and early governments of the US. In short the Constitution does not contain any requirement such as the question suggests, and was never intended to do so, because the founders felt it essential to allow the government an unlimited power to borrow money, limited only by the needs of the case and the sound judgement of Congress.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. One can be served according to the state law or: (2) doing any of the following: (A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally; (B) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or (C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized None of those would apply to your facts. Thus you would have to find some jurisdiction that would allow service of process under your fact. I dare say that none will and that due process would come into play. In NJ, due process applies and service may be made (1) Upon a competent individual of the age of 14 or over, by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the individual personally, or by leaving a copy thereof at the individual's dwelling place or usual place of abode with a competent member of the household of the age of 14 or over then residing therein, or by delivering a copy thereof to a person authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process on the individual's behalf; It has to be the current place of abode.
Because the nations that made the list (which was modified at the time of the SCOTUS hearing) were selected based on their ability to provide the US with documentation for vetting of immigrants (or rather their lack of an ability), not religion, and the courts give the legislature (Congress) and the executive branch (President) wide discretion when matters of security are involved as they are related to foreign relations where the Judiciary have very limited powers. The specifics of the law which the Executive order modifies do not limit the President beyond a bona fide reason for which the selection was made. The court also ruled that the document contains no mention of any religion specifically or any matters pertaining to religion, and that several nations on the list have no Muslim Majority (they cite 2, but I am only aware of Venezuela being on the list). Additionally, the nation of Chad was removed from the list after their standards were brought up to scratch. In the original opinion, they did say that the campaign remarks were considered in that they pointed to the plaintiff's standing in the case (you need to show a potential harm is inflicted on you by the law in order to get a court case. Or in other words, I cannot ask the court to hear a case on rights of a vampire, because I am not a vampire) but found that the request to probe for malice in the minds of the President and his staff was not an area they could tread as there was a good reason for the law and several prominent Muslim Majority nations were not included. Basically, if the government could show that the order was made by some objective standards that neither favored nor disfavored a religion, then it is not a violation of the first amendment. For five of the justices, the government satisfied this requirement.* *Note, I am still reading through the ruling... my PDF of it keeps crashing and I lose my place.
The situation is that Executive Order 2020-33 is no more, and a new order, 2020-68 exists. The old orders to stay home are now copied under this order, but it may be necessary for her to re-issue (a subset of) the orders so that they are pursuant to #68 and not #33 (live by the technicality, die by the technicality). If she does not do that quickly, I expect there to be legal challenges. The law (30-403) doesn't say that orders issued pursuant to a declaration of a state of disaster expire when the authorizing declaration expires, but one can reasonably infer that that is what the legislature had in mind when this law was passed. But that is a matter for the courts to decide. Deference to the executive, which is the usual way that courts operate, would favor an interpretation where saying "All previous orders that rested on Executive Order 2020-33 now rest on this order" counts as re-issuing the same orders with a new number in the text. The law does not say that the circumstances authorizing an emergency order have to be completely different. Perhaps the legislature will revise the law in the future, but it is what it is right now.
Art. 1 Sec. 9(8) says two different things. The first says that "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States". That means that the US cannot grant a title (hereditary or otherwise) like "Duke of Detroit", "Prince of Princeton". It does not prohibit the practice of speaking of POTUS as "His Highness, the President of the United States", likewise "His Elective Majesty" or "His Excellency", but early discussions in the Senate put paid to even calling a president this, and instead he is just called "Mr. President" (just as judges are called "your honor"). An appellation such as "Chief Justice" is not a title of nobility, it is a job description. We don't have titles of nobility granted by the government. There is a constitutional amendment, the Titles of Nobility Amendment, which was considered but not ratified, which is stricter on the anti-nobility statce. Then there is second thing, that prohibits officials from "accept[ing] of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state", without Congressional approval. Accordingly, the president, sec'y of state or a congressman cannot accept a gift, such as a car, from a foreign power, unless it is approved by Congress. Every congressional "exception" was approved by Congress; moreover, such benefits are not from a foreign power. The Speech or Debate Clause Art. I, Sec.6(1) in fact gives congressmen a privilege (immunity from arrest) which ordinary citizens do not have. So there is no connection between titles of nobility and free bean soup or whatever legal exemptions Congress may give itself.
The law was changed several times, and different versions apply to different age groups because certain rules were not changed retroactively. The page you link describes the situation for children born after the year 2000. My advice: citizenship is such a serious matter that you should consult a specialized lawyer, not a random crowd on the web.
To be determined. Warren Decision [t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists [emphasis added] Castle Rock and Warren denied the existence of a legal duty to specific individuals of performance of law enforcement activity given the specific fact pattern in those cases. These rulings have been generalized into what's been called the No Duty to Rescue Doctrine (NDRD). It's possible a future court could uphold those principles and apply the NDRD to the Parkland case. Or not. Depends on the arguments of fact and law made in court to that effect. The primary argument against applying the NDRD might be as you described, i.e., the specific nature of Peterson's duty assignment to Parkland. One interesting angle on this question is if Peterson owed a duty to act, then who rightfully owned the debt of his obligation? One could argue the Sherrif's department that employed Peterson was the sole lawful holder of his duty to perform and not the school or the victims. In short, it's all very complex and the specific facts at play (which are still surfacing) will be determinative as no applicable statutes or case law yet exist that extend beyond the cited references.
A lot, but let's be practical. Or nothing, depending on how it is taught. I experienced the joy of obligatory 4th grade Spanish instruction, where there were virtually no Spanish-speaking teachers (they relied on a edu-tv show): it was not at all effective and didn't last a year. Teacher training on the subject matter is a big problem: so it should be taught like chemistry or high school health, and not mathematics or literature (focused class taught by an expert, for juniors or seniors). There used to be "high school civics" which taught a little bit of this, but primarily focused on politics and not the consequences of politics. Before constructing a curriculum, you need a goal (well-articulated and reasoned, not just an emotional position like "it would be good to know this"). History and literature are more on the side of "that's what it means to be educated", whereas mathematics and grouse-trapping is more on the side of "survival basics". Elementary legal education is more on the side of survival skills, which means, given a choice of an hour on voir dire versus an hour on 4th Amendment search and seizure, the hour should be spent on search and seizure. Although it is a bit abstract, elementary jurisprudence is one of those mixed survival-skill + abstract fundamentals that is so important that everybody should understand (some of) it. The reason is that it goes to the question "what is the law?". Most people believe incorrectly that "the law" is only that which was passed by Congress / the legislature, and there is very little appreciation for the necessity of interpreting the words of the law-givers. The concrete target of elementary jurisprudential education should be an understanding of why we have appellate courts. Contract-reading would be rather high on the list of priorities, at least as long as attorneys are allowed to charge for their services and free legal advice is not deemed to be a fundamental constitutional entitlement. It is easy to say "you should have your attorney read that contract", but very few people do. The goal is to improve people's ability to understand the consequence of contracts so that they don't mindlessly agree to everything, given the reality that people are not going to take all of their contracts to a lawyer and ask if it's okay to sign. Every citizen should know when they are in over their heads and should hire a lawyer. Also high on the list would be a solid understanding of "my rights as a citizen". People tend to intuit what the law is in terms of their feelings about "my rights", so if you feel that you have a right to barbecue a hamburger, then you will tend to think that it is legal to do so. It is therefore very important that every citizen have a solid understanding of what "your rights" are, and ways in which your feelings can be mistaken. Basic education on the Commerce Clause (and state relatives) is very important, given that the Commerce Clause is a major source of counterexamples to people's intuitions about their rights.