|
Real0ne -> RE: The Department of Homeland Security says it is illegal to freely play music in The United States. (7/30/2013 4:58:51 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69
At the risk of fattening the troll...
RealOne: I still don't get what point you are trying to make.
OK, so as part of the filings in any court case, the State will refer to its jurisdiction over the matter. It's all that ledalese with the )'s at the begining of the document. And yes, there is often conflicting jurisdictions when crimes are committed that fall under both state and federal authority. So what?
Wrong, the state will make a claim, and wrong again, that is only the heading and title, names etc, of the court the ppw is filed in nothing more.
That like what 3 or 4 strikes for you so far? LOL
But back to your various statements: There is no need for you to prove anything about jurisdiction. The only time it is an issue is when there are conflicts between parts of the Government.
Wrong again! steerike 5
So again, I don't understand
true
why you think you need to prove jurisdiction except as a way to evade responsibility.
Ok I seen enough, PLONK this is a waste.
If you, as a business owner get busted for not having an inspection sticker or a liquor license, do you really think you can stand before a judge and claim the town/county/whatever doesn't have jurisdiction? You'll be laughed right out of court and probably have additional fines added. And yes, I've been in court a few times over the years and on both side. Although to be honest I suspect you've been there a lot more than I have. Fine by me.
There is only one governing body, commonly referred to as The Government, be it local, county, state, or federal. There is no "competitive agency" that handles building inspections, traffic violations, or any of other type of law enforcement. The Free Market cannot ever be THAT free. If, in your little fantasy world, there were 4 or 5 different companies that could inspect a nightclub/bar/whatever to see that it met certain safety standards, there are immediately two problems: 1) Who sets those safety standards; 2) Who certifies the companies that do the inspections? If you answer the State Fire Marshall or State Building Inspector then you have just lost the game. Further, there would be nothing to stop a business from printing his own sign saying the location has been inspected and is safe. Who would argue with it? If you want to see the act that is performing you probably will not stop to verify the inspection notice. OK, YOU might, but most people would not.
So again I ask, what is the point you are trying to make here? Are you angry that only the State can inspect and license an establishment? Isn't that one of the reasons we institute governments in the 1st place? To establish certain standards of behavior (laws) that are enforcable. Remember that whole "to provide for the common defence, insure domestic tranquility" etc...?
You can certainly make the case that many laws are overreaching and that in many cases Government is overly intrussive. But do you really want to attend a concert in a building that has NOT passed a basic inspection? Do you want to buy/rent/live in a house that does not meet the local building code? Do you want to share the road with cars that do not have a certain minimum level of safety? Do you want to eat food that was processed in whatever manner a company sees fit? Do you not care that the water you drink, regardless of its source, is safe? While the list of regulations seems endless, would you prefer to throw them all away and let the almighty Market decide? We've seen that model and it does not work.
So once again I ask: What is your point? No more baseball metaphors - just answer the question.
|
|
|
|
