What is the nature of a quorum? As I understand it, a quorum is the minimum necessary for business to get done in a meeting. My understanding is that a quorum merely prevents business from taking place without meeting the required number of members present. It is not an grant of authority for things to take place when you do happen to meet the minimum threshold. For example, the quorum may be set at a majority of members. But without a rule stipulating that a majority vote wins, a quorum is not sufficient to tell you whether or not a majority can carry a motion. To go further, the quorum certainly does not override any requirement that a supermajority carry any motion. In sum, my understanding is that a quorum shouldn't be read to explain what number is necessary to carry a motion. My understanding is that a quorum merely denotes the number required for any business to take place at all.
Quorum defines the minimum number of members present in order to conduct business. Once quorum is met, members may make motions and the assembly may conduct business. Now your question concerns the minimum required for passing a motion, and you are correct some motions require more than majority, such as 2/3 vote. The problem in your analysis is that rules of procedure assume that the majority or supermajority is met from the members present and voting, not from the total number of members. Let me show you some examples so you can fully understand. Let's say there's an assembly with 21 members, with the standard quorum requirements of majority of the members. The minimum number of people required for quorum show up, which is 11 (more than half is majority). In order to pass a motion, you only need majority of the members present and voting. That typically means 6 people. However, let's say 2 members abstain from the vote or are present at the meeting but don't record their vote. Then a vote can pass 5-4. Quorum is met and a majority of the members present and voting, voted for the the motion. Similarly 2/3 votes are counted from members present and voting. There is an exception to this. If the organizations bylaws say that it takes a majority of the members to pass a certain motion, then the motion must pass by the majority of the total number of members in the organization, which is 11 in this case. Thus all 11 people present in the room would have to vote for it.
In general, a &quot;mandate&quot; is not a legal term. It can refer to any situation is whch people are &quot;required&quot; to do something, such as wear masks or become vaccinated. A mandate can come from a private business, that imposes rules on customers; it can come from a business that imposes rules on employees, it can come from executive action not directly authorized by any law, it can come from a regulation authorized by some law, or be directly imposed by law. Mandates imposed by law or regulation are likely to be enforceable in court, depending on their exact terms. Mandates imposed by executive action may perhaps be enforced in court. Mandates imposed by private businesses can often be enforced by the business ejecting a customer, refusing to deal with an entity that does not comply, or by disciplining or discharging an employee. In each case the exact terms of the mandate will matter, and may define how it may be enforced.
Only in the “most unusual and extraordinary circumstances” &quot;conceivable&quot; Respect for the chain of command is central to the armed services. As a result, lower ranked officers generally cannot relieve a higher ranked officers of command. Instead, they must work through the chain of command, taking their complaints to their superior's superior. To do otherwise is usually considered mutiny. As far as I know, the only service that has made formal provisions for this is the Navy. This makes sense, given that ships at sea may be out of contact for extended periods. The Navy regulations involving a subordinate can relieve a superior of command are found in § 1088. Relief of a Commanding Officer by a Subordinate of Chapter 10: Precedence, Authority and Command of the US Navy Regulations, issued by the Secretary of the Navy. Here is what that sections says: In the “most unusual and extraordinary circumstances,” a commanding officer can be relieved only by the “next in succession to command.” The problem must be so “obvious and clear” that any “reasonable, prudent and experienced officer” could reach only a “single conclusion:” that leaving the officer in command would “seriously and irretrievably prejudice the public interests.” Unless it is a “undoubtedly impractical,” the subordinate cannot act “without the approval of…higher authority...” The subordinate can act only after “much careful consideration” and after an “exhaustive investigation of all the circumstances…” The decision “must be based upon…substantial evidence,” and supported by “the official views of others in a position to form valid opinions…” Any subordinate who relieves a superior will “bear the legitimate responsibility for…such action,” and “must be prepared to justify…” it.
No While you can be bound to terms you had the opportunity to read and didn’t, you cannot be bound to terms that you did not have the opportunity to read. That doesn’t mean that you don’t have a contract but it will be on different conditions to those in the undisclosed terms. For a contract to be valid, the parties must agree on the essential terms, for a phone contract, what service the phone company is giving and how much the consumer pays. Incidental terms can be left undefined and they will, if needed, be filled in by a court with reasonable terms. However, this only happens to the extent necessary to give effect to the primary purpose of the contract. For example, late fees or termination fees are not strictly necessary (common law principles of damages for breach of contract work just fine) so, if the undisclosed terms include them, they will be unenforceable. Notwithstanding, it’s quite likely that refusing to disclose in the advance violates state or Federal consumer protection laws against misleading or deceptive conduct.
Contracts are subordinate to the law Any clause in a contract that is unlawful is void. So, if the law compels you to disclose information then even if a contract prohibits it, disclosure is not a breach. However, in most circumstances, law enforcement officers have no power to compel disclosure - you have a right to remain silent. As such disclosure when it was requested but not required would be an actionable breach of contract. On the other hand, a judge can most certainly compel disclosure.
There is no general legal obligations be truthful Such an obligation only arises where specifically called out by law or where there is a relationship of trust between the parties, e.g. they are negotiating a contract, they have a doctor-patient relationship etc. In any event, the President has legal immunity for actions performed as President. Presidents answer for their misdeeds at the ballot box, not the courthouse.
The general rule is, anything is allowed unless it is forbidden (and not that you can only do things that are expressly permitted). The logical structure of law may be a bit more challenging than procedural programming logic, since it may require a global knowledge and evaluation of the entire code (typically but not absolutely, the scope of the search for "unless otherwise" conditions is restricted to "in this chapter"). In other words, the law is a set of propositions which must all be true, and unlike actual execution of instructions in a sequence, law is to be interpreted simultaneously but hierarchically (that is: the order in which clauses are written is not significant). The appearance that the law is self-contradictory is largely illusory, though the resolution of the conflict may require a careful reading of the law and knowledge of jurisdictional hierarchy (federal law is superior to state law, which entails a particular resolution of the apparent conflict). Sometimes there are real conflicts, which usually result from using words in conflicting ways (note the practice of re-defining words "in this chapter/section/title"). The reason why law is not a science is that law is normative, not descriptive: it dictates what is allowed (a determination made through the political process), and does not attempt to discover what independently is. The reason why the legal process cannot be implemented in software is that software does not yet correctly interpret natural language, and law is written in natural language following interpretations based on judgments of what choices a reasonable would make. Perhaps if you propose a piece of law that you think is contradictory, it would be possible to show how the contradiction is illusory.
For business A, the place where the person sits who transmits the orders to ship the goods to the customer, the place where the person sits who transmits the orders to authorize customers to access their newly purchased cloud goods, and the place where the person sits who authorizes customer subscriptions are all places where A does business. If any of these are done by an automated script, then the place where the person sits who starts and stops that script, and potentially troubleshoots it, is a place where it does business. For D, if it does not sell any of this research, then it does not do business. if it does, then the place where the person (or people) who do the research do it is a place where it does business, and so also is the place where the person sits who takes orders for the research, or runs the script which does this. If any of these are multiple variable places, such as cofeeshops with wifi, but they are all within the city Foo, then the company does business within Foo. The Foo City Clerk can probably say how the form should be filled out in such a case. This is assuming that Foo has an ordinance requiring a Business License, not all localities have such a requirement. Or the requirement may differ depending on the type of business, all this varies widely depending on the location/jurisdiction. But the business is done where a human does it, not in the cloud, even if the human uses cloud tools to do business. A human must be at some physical location at any given time.