Silly Arkansas

It's funny, all these righteous politicians ran on the promise of creating more jobs for the common man, and all they are doing is pushing their ideologies, and creating more work for lawyers.

PF
 
Obviously the politicians in Arkansas are unfamiliar with the Bill of Rights, Article One in particular - which has been the death of more than a few examples of this kind on arbitrary nonsense before.

They also seem to be blissfully ignorant of their proper place in the scheme of things; they are politicians, not emperors.

This is what happens when corrupt, arrogant, self-entitled weasels are elected to high office. Just saying...

[SIZE=+2]Unconstitutional Official Acts

[/SIZE]​
[SIZE=+1]16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

 [/SIZE] The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.



Source: http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm
Click to expand...
 
I have long given up worrying about laws in other states.
Guns/no guns, gay rights (or lack of gay rights), abortion, voting photo ID's, stop-and-ask-for-papers, stand-your-ground-and-shoot.
Now it's (again) no photographs in public somewhere.

Is this what "states rights" is all about?
You can shoot someone "if you feel threatened" but you can't take his picture because *he* may feel threatened.
God bless America.
 
So ever wedding guest would get a release form with their invitation. They said about Hubert Humphrey that he had a solution even when there wasn't a problem.
 
"Article the First", et al, were the proposed amendments of the First Congress. The actual amendments are referred to in the Bill of Rights, as Amendment I, etc.

"Article the Third" of the proposal actually ended up being the First Amendment. No one pleads Article the 7th on the witness stand. :)
 
photomoof said:
You miss the point, Article if the First, is not Amendment one. Actually Article 3 is Amendment one as I remember.

Really you are both wrong, and yet we all knew what was meant. Why do people on the web fight grammar wars? ;)
Click to expand...

The Amendments are not referred to as Articles. That's not an incorrect statement. :) The Articles in the congressional proposal are not amendments.

Actually Article 3 is Amendment one as I remember.
Click to expand...

I think that's exactly what my post says...lol
 
I worked down in Little Rock and El Dorado for a few months in the early 90's. We were moving the headquarters of a company up to the Chicago area. The main building was locked down at night. Locked down so tight that if you didn't have your electronic badge you could not get out. No emergency exits, building lost power and there was a fire, you were cooked.

I asked management why and they responded why not require it.

Driving between Little Rock and El Dorado it was shack, shack, shack, shack, Mansion, shack, shack, shack, shack, shack, MANSION, shack, shack......

Then the year after Katrina hit the family spent Christmas vacation helping to rebuild houses and on the way back north we passed the Hope Airport. It was shut down but full, fence to fence to fence, as far as the eye could see with trailers. Folks were still killing themselves because they had no place to live and the airport was full of new, unused trailers.

Nothing they do surprises me.

B2 (;->
 
BillBingham2 said:
I worked down in Little Rock and El Dorado for a few months in the early 90's. We were moving the headquarters of a company up to the Chicago area. The main building was locked down at night. Locked down so tight that if you didn't have your electronic badge you could not get out. No emergency exits, building lost power and there was a fire, you were cooked.

I asked management why and they responded why not require it.

Driving between Little Rock and El Dorado it was shack, shack, shack, shack, Mansion, shack, shack, shack, shack, shack, MANSION, shack, shack......

Then the year after Katrina hit the family spent Christmas vacation helping to rebuild houses and on the way back north we passed the Hope Airport. It was shut down but full, fence to fence to fence, as far as the eye could see with trailers. Folks were still killing themselves because they had no place to live and the airport was full of new, unused trailers.

Nothing they do surprises me.

B2 (;->
Click to expand...

I'm curious what this has to do with anything?

There are poor people, and well-to-do people, in every state of the union.

And there are poor managers, too. :)

And, of course, there are politicians in every state who don't know the Constitution, and/or do their best to chip away at it...
 
No wonder the Governor vetoed it, just imagine:
1. How about attending a political rally, will that be covered - no more media coverage for these guys just in case Im standing near to them and appear in the picture?
2. No more scene setting pictures of 'downtown' in case, with the high res images possible, I am recognisable at magnifications of 100x, I will sue you know
3. how about the County Fair? Oh no, it is a public space with people in it - out of bounds
4. I imagine the movie lawyers will be drawing up new guidelines for their producers, anywhere but Arkansas
5. No live news coverage
The Governor must have woken up and realised that his/her next campaign may be text based only, mind you, a thousand babies were heaving sighs of relief that they no longer had to submit to kisses from the Governor - ooh that sounds so weird when written down.
 
Of course the article Bill referenced is over a year old. I don't recall such a law having been put into effect since then (but I don't keep up with politics too closely).

Crackpot politicians are everywhere. Arkansas has no monopoly. Luckily the proposals these morons come up with seldom actually are made law--thank goodness.
 
According to the interview in this article from the NYT Arkansas is the state where Robert Frank had to spend a night in jail :)
I feel everywhere, where I live included is that photography in public not touristic spaces is getting more and more difficult, it's not a crime but it has become a suspicious activities...
robert
 
robert blu said:
.... I feel everywhere, where I live included is that photography in public not touristic spaces is getting more and more difficult,....
Click to expand...

It has for me too. Security at bus and rail stations has gotten what I call Camera-Stupid. I was working above one of the train stations in Chicago, came down stairs to leave the building, noticed really interesting lighting coming through the large windows playing on the super structure, tried to take a picture and heard "Sir, no pictures allowed in the station" as this guy in a building security coat walked towards me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom