Saturday, December 17, 2011

What is the legislation called that made it compulsory to add fluoride to tap water?

It was the act based on a certain study by Dr. Frederick McKay in 1909 and now we have fluoride in our water isn't that great. Take a ride with the fluoride lol. Oh, and if you don't know tell me your opinion on the subject. Please, I value your opinion.|||in our country its flouridationof water rules - subsidiary legislation of the main act - Water Catchement and Water Purification Act,

mckay was ahead of his time. that save billions of teeth esp with the food we eat nowadays

Is NY state banning clove cigarettes? Which legislator introduced the legislation and why?

I went into my local smoke shop and the owner told me that I needed to get a hold of my ploitical connections because the state was planning on banning the importation of clove cigarettes from the Djarum Corp. out of indonesia. They were told flavored cigarettes were targeting children. Clove cigarettes have no tobacco and no carcinogens are twice as expensive as tobacco. I just can't figure out who would introduce this legislation. I smoke five cloves per day to curb nausea caused by multiple medications. I know in large quantities the can cause COPD like regular cigarettes, I have never seen an advertisement for the cigaretters I smoke. I need this basic information to proceed to the legislature and to Elliot Spitzer, future governor or at least that's what it looks like of New York|||Here is the only information I could find:

amNew York - May 31, 2006

Councilman: Raise smoking age to 21

By Chuck Bennett

Young New Yorkers would have to wait until they are 21 to legally buy their first pack of cigarettes if a controversial City Council bill is signed into law.

All tobacco-related goods, including cigars, chewing tobacco, rolling papers and pipes, would be off-limits to people under 21.

The bill's sponsor, Joel Rivera of the Bronx, the Democratic majority leader and chairman of the council health committee, said raising the age would cut down on teen smoking and "improve the general health of all New Yorkers."

Rivera is expected to announce another piece of legislation today, which is World No Tobacco Day. His bill would ban all flavored cigarettes -- except menthol and clove -- in the five boroughs.|||

Join the cause!!! Posted on the media wall is links to articles and online petitions you can sign!!!

Report Abuse

|||Check to see if the person was contacted by somone from Philip Morris, as they support the 2004 US Senate Bill on this legislation|||I read that they are even worse than ordinary cigarettes . You might be fed erroneous info by somebody who wants to make a profit from selling them .They are appealing to kids who mistakenly think they are ok . It couldn't be further from the truth .|||With all of the problems in the world they are going after clove cigarettes. I bet New Yorkers are very happy to have the government take care of them and make their personal decisions for them.

How can John Boehner, Speaker of the House, say passing debt ceiling legislation is President Obama's problem?

If debt ceiling legislation doesn't get passed it will be John Boehner the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader, and the other leaders of the legislative branch’s fault not President Obama’s.|||He is admitting that he can not get yes votes of all the house Republicans on any bill that will pass in the senate, but Obama may be able to get the votes of the democrats and enough republicans to pass a bill in the house that will also pass in the senate. There are a lot of house republican that depend on the support the people that owns the bonds that will not be paid and will not be happy if the government default .|||There's no law saying there has to be a debt ceiling or that a deal must be passed. Obama and the democrats can either give into republican demands or there won't be a debt ceiling increase. Simple as that. It's up to Obama to get his side to get some common sense and realize what the people want. We spoke last November and it's Obama and the democrat controlled Senate's turn to listen.|||Because if obama doesn't agree to massive spending cuts without net tax increases the Reps will just pull an obama and go play golf...the tax revenue is more than enough to cover our debt payments and entitlements aren't encumbered by the debt ceiling, so obama will have to choose which parts of the govt to shutdown in order to stop the massive overspending.|||Legislation has to be signed by the President before it becomes a law. One would think you would know that. Furethermore, legislation must be passed by the Senate after it is passed by the House; otherwise it does not become a law. These are fairly elementary points.|||John Boehner did not say that.

He said, debt ceiling is Obama's problem — and it is. Not passing the increase of it, which is something Congress can do, if it chooses to.

But, I guess, the nuance is too much for the Illiberals...|||How can The President say he wants to reduce the deficit, and want to raise taxes at the same time? To say he wants a Four Trillion Dollar cut in the deficit and in the next sentence require a One Trillion Dollar Tax increase? That onus is on him.|||When your Dad won't raise the limit on the Visa he lets you carry, IT IS your problem.

Obama will have to decide whether to obey the law and pay BILLS or deliberately default to fund political payouts instead.|||99.9% of what Boehner says is politically motivated. For Boehner, the Republican Party is more important than the United States of America.|||Grover Norquist is calling the tune for 300 million people.. pretty crazy if you ask me bro.. that one un-elected man is more powerful than the president of the United States.|||if debt ceiling legislation does get passed, all taxpayers need to vote out anyone involved when the next election comes around|||Who do You trust, I trust anyone over Pres. Dick hussein obama. My methane gas says more truth than Dick hussein obama, and it smells better.|||Because he is an obstructionist douchebag.|||Vocal chords enable a lot of people to talk.|||Right, but you know what they say? Put it on tv or the radio and people will believe it.|||Hey, I'm just glad you're giving Dems an equal part of the blame...|||I know right????

The man is out of touch|||He will have to SIGN it to become LAW.

Does anybody know how members of Congress shoose the numbers that go in front of pieces of legislation?

How do Congressmembers be it in the House of Representatives or the Senate choose the numbers that accompany each and every piece of proposed legislation as the title's of the Bills they are proposing? For example Congressman Ron Paul chose 1207 to go in front of the Audit The Federal Reserve Bill. What I was wondering is what is the significance to these numbers H.R. 1207 , S. 510, ect... or are these numbers chosen randomly?|||Members of Congress do not choose the numbers for a particular bill. In the House of Representatives, a representative may introduce a bill by placing a copy in a brown box called the "hopper". The Clerk of the House of Representatives enters the title of the bill into the journal which subsequently gets printed in the Congressional Record. When the Clerk does this, he assigns the bill a number.

The Senate process is similar. Bills are introduced by members when the bill is presented to one of the clerks of the Presiding Officer. The new bill is assigned a number at that time.

You can read more about the entire process at "How Our Laws are Made"…

How might legislation that appears contrary to the rule of law be challenged under the Human Rights Act 1998?

I have to answer this question for my law exam and I have absolutely no idea about what to write. I've checked on the internet and in books but I can't find anything at all. I would appreciate any help at all.|||What sort of legislation might appear contrary to the rule of law?

Maybe something that deprives people of the right to a fair trial? That could be challenged under article 6.

Maybe something that allowed punishment for something that wasn't illegal when it was done? That could be challenged under article 7.|||It seems almost contradictory to be challenging a legislation that appears to be breaching the Human Rights Act 1998 when British Parliament have attempted to come out of the ECHR when clearly, the HRA 1998 is a total embodiment of ECHR into HRA1998.

Report Abuse

What is the current legislation and code of pratices for machinary &?

what is the current legislation and code of pratices for machinary %26amp; horticultural equipment.

thanks|||Google for health and safety executive and you should find it without someone having to do it for you - there are some really lazy people around

What is the difference between an amnesty and a legislation?

What have been good and bad effects of past legislations or amnesties in the United States? Successes, failures, and consequences?|||Amnesty is an act of legislation. It was done in the past and America was flooded with illegals hoping to gain citizenship the same way. It was done when only a couple of hundred thousand were here. Now, there are millions. It would literally take too much time to document all that are here. More would come and complicate the issues if Amnesty were tried once again. It will not happen again.

There are so many here illegally now, that it is going to take States enacting laws like Arizona to rid the country of these exploiting people using up our tax dollars and benefits. That is.. unless the Federal Government sends this same message of enforcing our laws. WE are the ones that choose who are to come here and who are not.|||The 1986 Amnesty was a HUGE failure, and only encouraged more illegals to come here.

The American people today are not only against ANY amnesty, but want illegals here deported.

The Government seems to want the EXACT opposite of what the American people want.

An Amnesty today would fracture our country and cause a second American Civil War.

What about this Healthcare Legislation and small businesses?

I work for a very small company. My boss has stated that this bill was crafted by individuals with no knowledge of running a small business and the ramifications have not been properly assessed. We have not been significantly affected at this time but I am wondering what the future holds. Anyone out there with good information about the true impact this legislation will have on the small business?|||You losing your job so he wont have to pay for your health insurance|||Here are the basics. Overall fairly good for small businesses since it should lower premiums by 8 to 11% in the long run.

For small businesses, the effects of the now-passed health reform law include:

* By no later than 2014, states will have to set up Small Business Health Options Programs, or "SHOP Exchanges," where small businesses will be able to pool together to buy insurance. ("Small businesses" are defined as those with no more than 100 employees, though states have the option of limiting pools to companies with 50 or fewer employees through 2016; companies that grow beyond the size limit will also be grandfathered in.)

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the exchanges would ease small business insurance costs, albeit only marginally: premiums in the small-group market are forecast to fall between 1% and 4% under the exchanges, while the amount of coverage would rise by up to 3%.

* For the next four years, until the SHOP Exchanges are set up, businesses with 10 or fewer full-time-equivalent employees earning less than $25,000 a year on average will be eligible for a tax credit of 35% of health insurance costs. (Companies with between 11 and 25 workers and an average wage of up to $50,000 are eligible for partial credits.)

The tax credit will remain in place, increasing to 50% of costs, for the first two years a company buys insurance through its state exchange. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the tax credit will affect about 12% of individuals covered via the small-group insurance market, lowering their cost of insurance by between 8% and 11%.

* Insurers will no longer be able to set rates or exclude coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and can vary premiums only by geographic location, age, and tobacco use.

These restrictions, however, would not kick in until 2014. Going into effect immediately: a ban on lifetime limits on coverage, and on "rescission" (canceling policies already issued) except in cases of fraud.|||Currently or I should say before healthcare legislation was passed, health care was a benefit and not everyone gets all the benefits. A small business owner can and do hold back that benefit.

When and why were the M茅tis defined as Indians by Canadian Legislation?

When and why were the M茅tis defined as Indians by Canadian Legislation? Didn't Canada view the M茅tis as "half-breeds" and didn't want to give them any special rights because they were still "white"... so how did this change?|||There is a problem with your question in that the answer depends partly on what you mean by "Canadian Legislation." There is not now, nor has there every been a legal national "definition" of M茅tis for all purposes by any Federal government at any time. Even though the patriated 1982 Constiution Act, "specifies" or "identifies" M茅tis as one of the three Aboriginal Peoples of Canada, it does not define who that identification does or does not cover.

If you mean any legislation anywhere in Canada since Confederation by any government of any kind, then you get into a morass of futile attempts by various governments at various times to define M茅tis so as to restrict who may or may not enter treaty, who may or may not be identified as "Indian" for purposes of the Indian Act. or who may or may not access programs and services for Aboriginal peoples in general, or for M茅tis people in particular.

M茅tis, in different times and circumstances over the last four or five hundred years, were some times identified and some times excluded from identification as "Indians" depending on the purposes of those doing the legislation. They were included as Indians when non-aboriginal legislators feared M茅tis wanted something legislators thought only white men should have, and they were excluded from "Indian" identification when legislators feared M茅tis wanted something only "REAL" Indians should have -- especially if governments had to pay for it. Who ever "Indians" might be is a whole other question and a whole other answer..

In my research as a M茅tis consultant over the lat 30 years or so I have collected well over a hundred terms used by people in various places, circumstances, and for various purposes. Many of them would likely cause this response to be reported for racial slurs.

If you really want a more specific answer, I suggest you ask a more specific question. No offense intended.

Regards, Martin D.|||They have not been defined as natives, but are in a special category of their own. They are not covered under INAC legislation, but there are some separate things for them. This is pretty recent - in the last 10 or 20 years, but I cannot remember exactly when.

However, the definition of Metis has definitely changed. They were once simply a mix of the French fur traders and natives, usually Cree. They have their own language: Mishif. However, the definition has expanded to anyone with mixed white and native parentage, to a certain amount (although I cannot remember the exact amount - less than native though).

Will the American people ever wake up and see that republican legislation/policies are?

assisting the theft by corporations.

Their only agendas seem to be making more profits for corporations (or people as Romney calls them), wall street and hedge fund a**holes and swindling public and private workers out of benefits and pensions.

Boehner, where is the legislation for shovel ready jobs?

politicians = liars|||I agree with you. Those people above me don't know what they are saying. Yes, I would shoot my foot off if it was rotting as our government is today. And stop thinking that communism will come if not capitalism. It's them that make you think there are only two choices...You may have a job from a big corporation but that's just selfish to talk about yourself when we are talking about the whole country. People are self-centered, which is why overthrowing the government will not happen.|||The answer is "I hope yes"

Report Abuse

|||Revolt Now, you are right!!!!! The problem is that the american people are asleep and are in the dark about the hijacking of their country by the rich and powerful corporations. Also, you must realize what the reason is. The Repubs what to end all social programs and have the rich fat and happy; they are not trying to create jobs; you can't improve the economy by cutting spending which keep jobs. This is class warfare at its worst.|||Will liberals every wake up and realize that American liberalism is a fantasy that involves telling people what they want to hear, and taxing people more and then using those taxes to pay off interest groups that make money off of global warming, college educations, unions, NBC staff, NPR staff and all others who profit from telling you that government should invest more money so that NPR's CEO can get more money and the scientists in volcanology can have public-funding to use as his own personal fund.

There are no shovel-ready jobs. There are only the industries that are already here. Obama was the one who promised those "shovel-ready jobs" during the stimulus debate. Government can't make private companies provide jobs, other than by staying away and not taxing them.|||I have a job thanks to a big corporation, and I make money from them also in my retirement savings funds that are invested in several corporations. It's not all black and white.|||Will the American people ever wake up to see that democrats favor ILLEGAL immigration? I can't stand liberals sometimes! Why the **** would you want communism?|||The free market drives the economy. A policy of attacking corporations will serve no one. It's like shooting yourself in the foot because you don't like your shoes.|||What do you propose?

Would you like the government to own corporations? That's communism.|||there is a reason why they do not speak of 'trickle down' anymore.|||maybe

What environmental legislation is China proposing to limit its rapid economic growth?

Anyone know?|||None and that is why they are kicking our butts economically, because they have no punishment and restrictions that limit businesses to flourish and grow that is implemented by the Government and it's greedy takers....................|||China, with 1/3 the economy and 4 times the population of the U.S., is investing 5 times more than the U.S. per year on renewable resources.

That alone speaks something.

China is the world's No.1 maker of solar panels, is the No.1 in wind turbine installations, has more dams than the rest of the world combined...

Don't make environmental an obstacle for economy growth, make it a part of the growth.|||The Chinese government does not "Tolerate" insubordinate scientist, whom are shot on sight.

The only trees in America we should be really worried about right now are MONEY TREES.|||If they want to limit economic growth, they should emulate the policies of Obama and his dim-witted liberal advisers. If there's one thing these clowns know, it's limiting economic growth.|||more children.|||Since when do you care about the environment? I've read your posts before.|||raising interest on their dollar hell I don't know but I bet ' BETHY' does. winks|||The question makes no sense.

What groundbreaking legislation has McCain introduced in all his years in the Senate?

What is his claim to fame as a Maverick?

I ask because so far I haven't found anything that's bigger and better than Obama. Is there anything?|||He supported that bill for making illegal immigrants citizens that Bush supported also.

McCain is just wrong. Obama is not completely right.

Dennis Kucinich/Ron Paul - That's who we the regular and hardworking, taxpaying people should support. That's my opinion anyway. |||The only one I can remember off the top of my head is the "McCain-Feingold" campaign finance reform bill, which nearly everyone in politics now complains about as a limitation on 'free speech' and ineffective at stopping influence-selling (which was its intended target). Good job, Johnny!|||Really? Did McCain vote "present" that many times?

What are the benefits of being a member of the canadian legislation?

if my grandfather was a member of the canadian legislation and my father fought in wwII in the canadian infantry, would i be able to automatically become a canadian citizen, or are there any other benefits i could utilize.|||Your question is unclear. What, exactly, do you mean by your grandfather being a "...member of the (C)anadian legislation..."? I am also not quite sure what you mean by, "...other benefits (I) could utilize...".

If you are asking about citizenship in Canada, you would have to speak with an immigration lawyer. Your question is phrased such that it may look as though you are trying to find a "back door" to entering Canada.

Names of socialist legislation in Congress?

I'm doing a paper for school, and I'm looking for any legislation that's been introduced in Congress in the past few years, or even any local governments around the country, that may be considered "socialist"; nationalizing banks other industries, etcetera. Might anyone know of any, or any websites that could lead me in the right direction? Thanks so much.|||look up doctor dinosaur in vermont.|||that MEDICARE IS SO SOCIALISt

I WANT THOSE UNINSURED AMERICANS TO DIE IN THE STREETS|||Socialism: the government controls the means of production and the distribution of wealth.

Controlling the means of production:

Government takeover of the auto industry

Government takeover of banks

Government takeover of health care

Redistribution of wealth:

Social Security

extension of unemployment benefits beyond that in the original law

Mandated purchase of government health insurance

Price controls on health insurance|||Redistribution of wealth:

Forcing single childless taxpayers to pay a higher tax than married with children freeloaders.

Forcing single people pay for married tax subsidies in the federal tax code.

Forcing childless people pay more for schools and children services in the federal tax code.

Giving free handouts to married people through a tax subsidy.

Giving free handouts to persons with children through a child tax credit in addition to their standard deduction.

Forcing single childless taxpayers to pay higher taxes than married with children freeloading taxpayers in the federal tax code.

What legislation currently being developed is the greatest threat to freedom in the US and why?

The Patriot Act greatly threatened citizen's rights in the US. The institution of the IRS trampled the citizen's right to personal property. McCarthyism threatened the right to assembly and free speech. What should we be concerned about today? Or, is there nothing to worry about at all.|||The entire socialist agenda of the progressive left which includes almost the entire Democratic Party and of course Mr Obama. Its been their dream for almost a century to subjugate the citizens of the USA and place us all under their thumb in the guise of the public good !!|||Overstepping by the supreme court. They undermine the legislative process and make law from the bench.|||I agree with you|||ALL OF THEM.

They vote on it BUT they even don't read it!|||What we as Americans should most be worried about is lobbying by private prisons, drug companies, and the timber and cotton industries. What these criminals lobby for is the continued criminalization of hemp production, as well as the incarceration of non-violent marijuana consumers. Fundamental American rights include those to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If a law prevents an American adult from putting a substance into their body, it opens a Pandora's box of violations of personal soveigrnty, as well inviting the abuse of other fundamental rights, including our 2nd and 4th amendments rights.|||The issue mentioned by one above is one of mere semantic. The supreme court, as federal courts do, set national president.

The supreme court cannot create laws, merely deem others unconstitutional. That is not creating laws, but setting president.

This whole issue of 'legislating from the bench' is indicative of the wide-ranging proclivity among actual legislatures to off load their duties and place them on another. How odd.

You're really living in a fairy world if you think there is anything that is truly 'free'.

Degrees can change, angles are unchanging.|||Health Care.

Even if you feel it is a good thing or a bad thing. It is not legal for a private company to charge a person for a service that they do not want provided.

Car insurance is not the same. You can have a hundred cars and not pay insurance until you use the roads. It is a condition of using public land for private purposes.

This is the same as oxygen insurance, a charge for being allowed to continue breathing. They can threaten to deny services if you cannot prove the ability to pay a hospital, but not mandate insurance|||Max Baucus health care reform. no choice gives more money to the insurance companies|||Your wrong about. The Patriot Act. It does not threaten citizen's rights and is only a temporary measure to respond to extraordinary circumstances. "McCarthyism" was not legislation and did not threaten anyone's right to speech or assembly. It did make a lot of Communists unhappy. You are correct about the IRS.

Health Care Public option is the biggest threat right now. Once the government provides health care, they will assume to control nearly every aspect of our lives and behaviors in the name of what is and is not "good" for us. That will include food production, transportation, leisure pursuits, speed limits, personal life-style etc.

They can limit what you are able to do by providing or denying health care. If you eat the wrong food, drive the wrong kind of car, participate in dangerous sports, smoke, drink or whatever else that can increase the likelihood of you being at a higher risk of disease or injury, the Government then has the right to limit that activity to contain health care costs.

*|||Listening to those paid to belch propaganda on talk radio health care reform, going back to sane sensible financial regulations we had before Ron Billy Georgie, INTERNET neutrality threaten the very foundation of our system of government. Thing that worries me the most is continuing to let fewer and fewer people own more and more of media in USA.|||H. R. 645 would authorize concentration camps in America.

What legislation covers the provision for most Financial services?

There are too many! You need to narrow your question.

How do I get involved to support breed specific legislation?

What are national or state groups promoting breed specific legislation? |||You can join PeTA or the HSUS. You can also read the news reports and find the fors and againsts in your area. I do not support BSL. BSL is bad for all animal owners. Once one breed gets banned, other breeds can be banned even easier because a precedencee has been set.|||The same way that you get involved to STOP breed specific legislation...write your local law-maker.

You do realize that breed specific legislation doesn't actually work, right? There has never been a single study that shows a decrease in dog bites or attacks in areas where BSL has been enacted. In fact, in the ONLY case where there was a decrease in dog attacks after BSL was enacted studies proved that it was EDUCATION efforts (educating both dog owners on proper dog care and training and the public on how to act appropriately around dogs) and had nothing to do with the BSL at all.|||The best way would be to write your local elected official and make your interests known.

The problem with breed legislation, is upon banning one breed, the focus moves right onto the next.... German Shepherds, Dobermans, Rotweilers, now Pits.... and next Cane Corso's. Banning breeds isn't the answer, banning poor pet ownership is.|||*Seconds Darla*

You go to my house, I take you to my backyard to meet my pit bull mix, Star,who will probably wag her tail, sniff you, and lick you. THEN decide if you think these dogs are evil.

Also, come to my local shelter that's OVER RUN with pit bulls, look at those squirming little puppies that only want to feel your touch and experience a nice home and say you want them killed.

Then look at this video. Oh, those EVIL Am. Bulldogs! It must have thorns on its tongue! Ugh!鈥?/a>|||Before you even think of supporting legislation, you should educate yourself. Are you really thoroughly versed on the issue and the ramifications of BSL?

Take this site for example:

Please do some more research before taking the drastic step of supporting further government infringement on our rights.|||Send this article to your legislators:

Dutch govt to lift pitbull ban

09/06/2008 21:20 - (SA)

Amsterdam - The Dutch government says it will lift a long-standing ban on pitbulls because it did not lead to any decrease in bite incidents.

Agriculture Minister Gerda Verburg has informed parliament of the decision, which follows the advice of a commission of experts appointed to review the policy.

Instead, the country will focus on enforcing local leashing laws and owner education programmes.

Spokesperson Koen Geelink said on Monday the ministry hopes to have a new policy in place by year-end, in which dogs that have displayed aggression will be tested by an expert.

The country banned the breeding and possession of pitbulls in 1993, ....|||1 - Educate yourself regarding the breed which you are supporting. You can't believe all you read! Meet dogs of this breed personally, visit shelters and get true information regarding the breed.

2 - Decide for your self if support of this legislation is honestly what you believe in.

3 - Determine if BSL has actually made a difference in the areas enacted through studies, and through personal experience. How can you support BSL if you have no first hand knowledge of the breed?

4 - Ask yourself if YOUR breed should be banned. Chances are you own a dog which others believe is 'bad' - YOUR breed could be next once precidence has been set.

5 - Decide if this is the road you wish to see traveled. Do you want to pay our lawmakers to determine what dogs we can or cannot own? Don't you think there are many more important things they should be doing - such as BALANCING BUDGETS, determining how to pay for their own health insurance just like the rest of America, and more importantly, passing term legislation so that career politicians are a thing of the past?

Best of luck in your research.|||Join PETA with the rest of the people full of fear and hate that want domestic animals extinct. (BSL is just another step towards that twisted goal they have.)

Do you realize that BSL won't stop the people that have these dogs for the wrong reasons? But it will hurt the *reasonsible* people. And you don't get to pick and choose, it's not just certain ones of the breed, it's all of them within the area. That means dogs like these would be banned as well:鈥?/a>鈥?/a>鈥?/a>


What legislation and basis gives government the power to sell your property if you don't pay property taxes?

even if it is unmortgaged and all obligations to the creditors and you don't partake in the societal benefits of property taxes e.g. fire and police protection, garbage collection.

What leg does it stand on now?|||The local government's ability to levy property taxes is usually codified in the state constitution, which is adopted directly by the people of each state.|||Tax evasion should be a capital crime with capital punishment.

Pay it up and stop complaining. You get plenty.|||It stands on the leg of if you owe taxes the kgb.. err IRS has the legal right to liquidate your property to pay for those taxes.

We live in a country where taxes are charged and the money handlers who deal with the taxes have a ridiculous amount of power to affect our lives.

The states may enact legislation concerning a subject in which there is a federal statute if:?

A. Congress has not clearly indicated that it intends to control that subject matter.

B. the states petition the Supreme Court for permission.

C. the state legislation falls within the "necessary and proper" clause.

D. the states reserve the right at the time the federal statute is enacted.|||C. the state legislation falls within the "necessary and proper" clause.

How to get state legislation proposed/sponsored?

I would like to approach my state representative regarding legislation I would like him to sponser. How do I go about doing that? Should I just explain general terms of what I would like accomplished? Or should I have a sample, formal legislative bill prepared for him to consider? What is the most successful method?|||Talk to him\her first. They know the format these things have to be in.

What legislation made it illegal for insurance companies to trade over state lines?

What law made it illegal for insurance companies to do business over state lines? Or, at the least, roughly in what year was it made illegal for insurance companies to do so?|||This is done by state laws not by a Federal law. However a federal law (if enacted) will override the the state laws.

Article Four: States' powers and limits鈥?/a>

JD|||States have differing laws about requirements for individual insurance policies. Car insurance, health insurance, homeowners' insurance, etc

There's no "one size fits all' insurance coverage outside of the Federal Government.|||I don't think it's like that. Each state has different laws regarding insurance, so it makes it difficult for companies to adhere to different standards for different states.|||Who said insurance companies can't operate in multiple states?

How do you explain national companies that sell in all states?

Insurance agents are licensed by the states. You must be licensed in the state where you sell insurance, and your office must be registered in the state.

But one agent can be licensed to sell in other states, and many are.

Whatever state you live in, they will find a way to do business with you.|||The McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 . gives states the authority to regulate the "business of insurance" without interference from federal regulation, unless federal law specifically provides otherwise.

States prevent policies approved in one state, from being offered in another state and the risk from policies from being spread over several states.

IE:insurance companies must comply with 50 different sets of regulations across the US.|||Thank you for answer, try this:

Why does health care legislation have to be simple?

So many are complaining about how complex the health care legislation is. But isn't a complex legislation required?

Think of it, we have a lot of issues to address in health care for our nation. Legislation has to:

-get everyone health care insurance

-stop everyone insurance company from unfairly discriminating against their customers

-setup a public health insurance plan and specify details to control it

-setup an insurance exchange

-setup reasonable administration to keep watch and recommend changes to the health care plans.

-Make short and long term goals for hospitals

-Find funding for all of this.

Exactly how could anyone accomplish this without a complex set of legislation?

Hasn't anyone heard that sometimes you have to work for what you want, instead of complaining that it could be better.|||It doesn't such legislation never is.|||"-get everyone health care insurance"

As complicated as they're making it, they've already admitted it will Not cover everyone.|||It wont work.|||I know I may be wrong here but it seems to me this is why were elect the representation that we do. Because,supposedly, they are better qualified to attack these complex issues better then we can. Supposedly. And that's their job. And that's what they get paid to do. But when push comes to shove, and it gets complex it doesn't seem that they want to do their job any more. They just want to vote themselves raises and go on vacations. Just take advantage of the perks and really not earn their keep.|||1. the proposals aren't about medical care, or even health -- they're about insurance and who pays for someone else's care.

2. excluding pre-existing conditions is necessary if you don't compel everyone to buy coverage -- otherwise, people will wait to buy insurance until they need someone else to foot the bill.

3. the bills so far all give the 'public plan' huge advantages that will drive all private plans out of existence over the next 5 to 10 years. This is, imo, a taking [of the business] and is prohibited by the Constitution without compensation -- looks like about $5 trillion in compensation to me. btw, who'll lose? your retirement plans, silly.

4. the insurance 'exchange' in the bills sets minimum mandatory coverages by a government board without specifying how the board is to make decisions. so far, every such board in every state that has tried it, always ends up adding more and more required coverages which bloat the costs beyond all recognition.

5. the proposed funding sources all all "soak the rich" or businesses type taxes. way to go, Dudley Doright -- you've just killed employment and encouraged jobs to go overseas as much as possible.

6. modified community rating -- which is in the bills -- blatantly overcharges the young and the healthy to give lower costs to the older and sicker. This is why 15 million people who can already afford insurance won't buy it -- it costs far too much. What is proposed will make this WORSE and MORE EXPENSIVE -- not better and cheaper.|||Those are 7 different objectives and should be addressed with 7 simple bills.

Personally, I can't see that any of it is the government's business at all. though

Where can I find informations about Indian labour legislation?

I can not find information on the Indian labour legislation (weekly hour work, minimum wages, labour contract...). I have check with google but nothing. Somebody can help me!!!|||鈥?/a>

India's minimum wage law, the Minimum Wages Act of 1948, recognised the argument for minimum protections, but has since fallen significantly behind. The law itself is now nearly 60 years old - a time during which inflation has raised costs several hundred percent - and does not set a specific minimum wage for all provisions, instead leaving it to the states to set occupation-specific wages. But, the states have largely had an anti-poor record in setting minimum wage levels; witness the massive variation in wages across the nation from Rs.25 a day - a ridiculously low figure - to a high of Rs.134, itself still questionable. While some revisions in specific areas have been made apart from this Act, there has been no revision of this law on an all-encompassing scale.

see also鈥?/a>

Why can't I deposit money on fulltilt/bodog anymore, what does the legislation mean?

I was told that it's restricted but every so often it works by bodog, is that a lie? And what exactly is the reason for all this? When did this legislation go through? Who does it affect? Is it federal? I use a Visa, walmart money card. I don't have a bank account, I refuse to give anymore money to the bank, do i have any other options.|||The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) was passed in September 2006, but the "compliance date" was pushed back many many many times. It was pushed back for the final time to June 1, 2010.

This act makes it illegal to transfer money from a US bank to any internet gambling site. Since June 1, getting money onto the internet sites has been a bit of hit and miss (I only know about the poker sites, I don't know much about the casino sites). Credit cards are not working very well, but I believe ACH (bank transfers) have been somewhat successful.

Personally, I would NOT try to do a bank transfer. I think you open yourself up to all types of legal hassles, including (possibly) getting your accounts frozen.

If I wanted to get money on the site, I would try to contact a friend who has money on the site and ask to do a player to player transfer. You can also check to see if someone can do a transfer with you for PayPal or something. I would not try to deposit directly on the poker sites for a few weeks until you can see how the government is reacting to the UIGEA compliance day.|||you can try sites like absolute poker and then transfer ur chips thru a third party site like Absolute poker and their sister site UB, have no morals, so they dont mind taking ur visa payment and disguising their payment processor as a 'mixed marketing' or 'travel shoppe' retailer. From there you can use a few different sites to ship your chips from one site to another.

The other way to do it is to use an online wallet like quicktender (aka usemywallet) or ewalletexpress. These places will take ur coin from ur card, for a small fee (around 5%) hold it in this so called online wallet, then let u deposit to any site that is affiliated with them, including full tilt poker.

hope that helps...|||It definitely becoming increasingly difficult to deposit money into online gaming accounts these days, and its very frustrating. One way around the problem is to utilize third party companies such as click2pay, MoneyBookers, Instadebit, etc etc etc. Hope this helps...|||especially for you long list for deposit option on :鈥?/a>|||Use Usemywallet or eWalletXpress to deposit and withdraw at online gambling sites

The best way constituents can influence congressional voting on legislation is to?

The best way constituents can influence congressional voting on legislation is to


sign petitions.


write letters or send telegrams.


fax or call in their opinions.


elect a representative or senator who agrees with their views.


demonstrate on the steps of the capitol.|||d. Elect a representative or senator who agrees with their views.

However, there is a big BUT here. It is rare to have more than about 50% of eligible voters going to the poles. The party which entices the greatest number of its constituents to go to the voting booth will be the party in power. The last presidential election where a majority of voters went to the polls is a rare exception. Congressmen are up for reelection every two years. Senators are up for reelection every six years. The years when congressmen and senators are not up for election is called an off year. These elections draw as few as 25% of eligible voters.

Members of congress who get their constituents to go to the poll are the ones who get elected. Thus the best way to influence congressional voting is to go to the voting booth and vote for the people who represent your point of view.|||Well really all of these are correct but the answer they are probably looking for is d.elect a representative or senator who agrees with their views

Why was legislation such as The Voting Rights Act of 1965 necessary?

There Are the Following Choices:

a) States were passing laws that discouraged or disqualified African-Americans from voting but did not technically violate the Constitution.

b) These Amendments did not apply to voting in state elections.

c) After 100 years, an Amendment to the Constitution is considered null and void if the country does not vote to reinstitute it.

d) This is a trick question, this legislation was not necessary.|||A|||A is the best answer. That being said, the answer is horrendously wrong. I'm guessing this isn't a law school class, so why it's wrong doesn't really matter.

(b) is incorrect because the Voting Rights Act is an act, not an amendment. It was passed in pursuance to Congress' 14th Amendment powers.

(c) Is flatly wrong

(d) It was needed, African Americans were being murdered for trying to vote and the southern police/courts refused to prosecute. Federal laws were passed to permit federal judges/FBI agents to prosecute the cases to bring some degree of justice to the region.

Explain the objective of equal employment opportunity legislation relating to hiring of personnel?

explain the objective of equal employment opportunity legislation relating to hiring of personnel? why is this necessary?|||The "objective" is to ensure companies hire without discrimination. This applies not only to race, but to sex, disabilities, and age as well.

The result is that companies do not always get the best qualified personnel, but many think the trade off is worth it.

As a British national looking to be commissioned by a USA company, what legislation/tax do I need to know?

What tax/business/other legislation should I be aware of as a British National who could soon be commissioned by a USA based company for one off projects, i.e. I do the work, in this case artistic, and leave them with the results should they accept? Any future work would be a fresh commission.|||You don't need to know a lot, as long as:

1. You surrender all right of title to the work to the US customer.

2. You perform the work outside of the US.

3. You have no ownership interest in the US company that is paying you.

Meet those 3 requirements -- meaning that the work is not "effectively connected to the US" (US tax jargon) -- and you will have no tax liability to the US. I'll assume that #2 and #3 are a given, but #1 is where it could get messy.

If you retain Intellectual Property rights to the work (artistic, software, etc.) and merely grant them a license to use the work (with or without restriction), that effectively connects the work to the US and any payment would be considered taxable royalties paid to you. You would have to supply a Form W-8BEN to the company and would receive a Form 1042-S at the end of the year. They would withhold 30% of your payment and turn it over to the IRS. You could then either let that ride or file a Form 1040-NR return to settle up with the IRS. Letting it ride would make sense if the net tax rate would exceed 30% -- around $940,000 would do that -- but filing the 1040-NR return would make sense if it were less.

If you don't retain any IP rights -- be sure that your contract is very clear on that matter -- then the work is not effectively connected to the US and is not taxable. If they ask for a Form W-8BEN, refuse claiming that since you are not a US person (citizen or resident) and that the work is not effectively connected to the US you are therefore not subject to US taxation. Your certification of those facts and your foreign address are sufficient for the company's records keeping should they be audited on the matter.|||US sourced income will need to be reported, this assuming is self employment

and, of course, where you are actually residing

Will the lawsuits stall health care reform legislation?

Several lawsuits are being filed over "bribes" to states such as Nebraska and Louisiana in order

to get federal legislation passed. Will these lawsuits be effective? Will it slow things down?

What happens now in terms of legislative procedure before it gets to Obama for signing?

How long will it take before it is signed?|||The lawsuits will mean nothing until the legislation is passed and Obama signs it. It's currently in Congress. The House passed one version and the Senate passed another. Now they have to work out the differences and come up with one that both houses can agree on. Then it goes to Obama to sign, and after he does, then the lawsuits can begin.

How long will it take before he signs it? Depends on how long it takes to work out a compromise between the two houses. Remember, the Senate had to make a lot of changes to get enough votes to pass it, and if they take too many of those out, they may lose some votes and not be able to pass the final bill.

Does anyone have a link to the legislation about holding terrorist suspects for 24hrs?

i need to find this piece of legislation really fast for an essay due in in 12 hrs time|||Every country in the world makes its own legislation. Since you didn't tell us where you are, how do you expect us to guess?


Question: Some of officials conferred power by legislation to act for justice, but knowingly to act injustly?

Based on I am unrepresented and experience some issues dealt with by some of officials [Government offcials %26amp; others] confered the power by Legislation, Acts %26amp; etc to act for interst of justice, but some of them knowingly to act for social realtionship, seriously prejudiced ethnic %26amp; etc.

Aforesaid facts is not making denigrating remake as to others, I am able to produce evidence who might query.

Some of facts express that some officials [conferred top power] deliberately to act for social relationship. Some officials are further responsable for the kind of issues being dealt with justly, but knowingly ignore them or alleged that they have no responsibility to deal with the issues.

In short, here legal system, unrepresented applicants are never to have their cases being dealt with justly, with respect of unrepresented case the officials act based on relationship with officials, friendship, prejudiced ethnic %26amp; according to no Legisaltion %26amp; Acts at all.|||Okay. Your attempt at speaking English is admirable, but you need to practice more.

Your question was really hard to understand, but basically, I think you are asking about personal bias influencing governmental positions, particularly in the Judiciary (?). If that is the case, I also disagree with the Judiciary branch of our federal government being appointed and not elected. It is not representative of the will of the people, and is, in my opinion, the constitution's only flaw. As for personal bias in government, the sad truth is that we are all human, and no matter how many anti-corruption measures we take, there will always be biased officials. It is human nature to be biased, and there is nothing we can change about that.

The system is imperfect, but it is the closest to perfect anyone has ever come, and I am happy with that.|||Question of “Whoever is liable to act for justice ....”.reveals how High Court dealt with my case as playing games %26amp; Philip Roddock was advised ...but turns his eyes into blind .... Alternatively another answer is better than this one given based on having no justice mind.

Report Abuse

|||The question is hard to understand, pls don't answer it. Pls make comments for interest of justice, no just for point of itself "The system is not perfect" is protecting moral turpitude from being revealed. Pls be advised the issue of this question is "knowingly to act for injustice.. "

Report Abuse

|||Please refer to aforesaid further question %26amp; even more later on. Please make your language not to prejudiced ethnic, and do not be proud your official language is the English, and you might not be able to write %26amp; speak any another language at all, English only. OK!!!

Report Abuse

|||yeah theres no hidden terrorist message THERE!

What is your opinion on the recent legislation?

passed declaring English as the 'common' language of the U.S.? Do you think that the legislation have any profound effect on the country or those applying for citizenship?|||No, it seems that most people who work towards legal citizenship already work at learning English because they realize that is the language of this country. What it will do is allow us to stop wasting tax payer money on providing services in multiple languages for people who tend to be here illegally. Of course, it's hard to say if this will happen or if states will continue to offer bilingual education, services, etc. The new legislation does not force states to stop offering these services, it just allows them to stop if they decide to.

Cheers :)|||I have no problem with it, as long as learning proper English also applies to President Bush.

I also think it will have zero effect on legal and illegal immigration.|||I'm all for it, and no, anyone that immigrates to the USA should respect the laws and the ways of the country, if they don't like, too bad.|||Those applying for citizenship must pass an English test.

It will have a profound effect in the world. We are taking peoples ancestoral heritage and customs from them because all the WASPS want you to think the same. It's Nationalism, just short of being facist! But that is what Republicans are.

America at it's worst. I don't see why people must hive up their language. Enclish was only one of four languages that came over with Columbus, and it was not the type of English spoken today. Much of the English language comes from other languages.

Wonder what is going to happen to all the states who have officially declared their state bilingual. Eskimo's aren't going to be happy. The Indians aren't either.

I wonder where all the Republicans are that want a smaller government?|||they no good.|||I would think that an individual migrating to the U.S. legally would want to learn English. Our country became great by unification and not fighting against unity. Language is part of unity.

If migrants do not want part of the total package, there are always flights by to their countries of origin.

Why are the Democrats in Congress afraid to pass the legislation they want?

The Democrats have a *majority* in both the House and the Senate. They should be able to pass any piece of legislation that they wanted to; however, they cannot seem to pass a budget, or immigration reform, or energy reform, or extensions of unemployment benefits.


I suspect that they don't *want* to pass legislation with which a majority of voting citizens will disagree. Instead, they would like to paint their opposition as a party of true opposition, as if they--the minority--could prevent anything from happening. The minority cannot prevent the majority from doing what they please.

If there is any other logical explanation, please present it so that we may all understand why the Democrats aren't doing the things they would like to do.|||Because the corporate lobbyists keep the democrats in office from passing the bills that the democrats who voted them in want them to vote for by the clever use of money.|||For one thing, they no longer have the majority required to invoke cloture on filibusters in the Senate. For another not all Democrats are fiscal and social liberals. There are numerous Republicans more liberal on some fiscal or social issues, than some Democrats.

Bills have to originate in committee. No committee has an overwhelming, major majority of the members from the majority party. It doesn't take much more than 2 or 3 committee members who do not follow the party line, to block, or water-down bills in committee.

One of most crucial aspects of either party, are the party whips. Right now the Republicans have a stronger whip organization, in both houses, than the Democrats have.|||1. Not all democrats are radical progressives some are quite moderate

2. Many democrats are so afraid of the midterms they refuse to give their support on any controversial legislation|||Because they are really afraid of Republicans Objection every Legislation they propose seems like they can't get their way.|||A simple majority (51%) is not enough to break a filibuster. And even then, not all dems agree on all aspects of every issue.|||I will give the clean answer: they are chicken. They do not want to have the blame squarely on their collective head %26amp; would rather have to "share blame" across the party lines.|||Ye Olde Filibuster.|||they know they are goinG to lose and they dont want to make things worse for themselves.|||Angry LYNCH MOBS.|||I don't think a lot of them want to risk their jobs. They know a lot of what they want is controversial. The Democrats had enough in the Senate to break a filibuster for a while and they still couldn't pass things. In a way I'm glad as it shows some of them have their own opinions on things, but it gets tiring to hear them complain about the Republicans stopping everything when they had the ability to pass whatever they wanted if they were united. At least own up to the fact you don't support everything your party does.

Now that the Democrats don't have enough of a majority to break filibusters they have a little bit more of an excuse--but they had plenty of chances for months before that.

If you were a politician, what legislation would you propose to deal with the issue of homelessness and psycho?

If you were a politician, what legislation would you propose to deal with the issue of homelessness and psychological disorders?|||...get "them" ALL a "one-way" bus ticket to San Fran'sicko and let kAlIfOrNiA take care of them; "they" seem to want to be the Nations "Nanny State", I'd see that "they" got their wish ! (Section #8 housing for everyone, food-stamps, medical marijuana ! what more can you ask for...? )|||Homelessness and the psychos became a problem when funding was cut, during the Reagan years, to keep those people in mental institutions where they could get treatment.

I guess we need to refund those type of programs.|||I would make no regarding either-they are not the business of the federal government.

If I were a local politician, I would then have to look at my local population and see what the real problems are and work accordingly.

Are people going nuts because they've lost their homes or have they lost their homes because they are nuts?

Are these people two different sets of folks?

What are the community dynamics?

Those questions need to be addressed only on a local level.|||There is no legislation that could change whether or not someone is schizophrenic....|||send them all to mexico to make up for the millions of illegals here from there?? maybe they can take over like their people are doing here??

Please what are the major points highlighted in the new impending HR legislation in the UK?

Human resources legislation|||People must be hired, and people want jobs.

Has Mitt Romney disassociated himself from his religious elders when it comes to legislation?

JF Kennedy said he was not under authority of the Pope when it came to legislation. Mitt Romney is a Mormon and presumably his religious elders may have some sway over what he can do and this may be the cause of some concern for non Mormon voters. has he made any statements similar to JFK's statements to put the electorate at ease?|||Only an eduated Mormon can really help you with a good answer. Kennedy was a devout Catholic, and he was fully aware of the Church's reluctance to engage in political banter. You may have heard that Catholic Church intertwinement with secular rulership and then politics pretty much led nowhere but problem city. The Church isn't engaged as an officialy political player. I'm not sure about Mormons. All of the Protestant faiths and their spawn came about specifically to reblend politics and religion in a way that Constantine the Great tried in the 4th Century. Constantine's actions are what led St. Ambrose to develop the original doctrines of separation of church and state being imperitive. That fortunately made it in the US Constitution, and Mit Romeny is a brilliant political leader. I don't doubt his faith for one second either, though I certainly understand the basis of his faith.Mormons are a pitifully small voting block. Catholics are an immensely diverse voting block. Religion, despite what many religious would like, will not be a factor in the election. America is far too secular in its population to let faith get in the way of politics.|||Has he made statements? He's been TRYING to make statements, but no one wants to listen. They want to listen to their own bigoted prejudices instead. More fun that way.

NO Mormon is under the authority of anyone else, especially when making decisions regarding their job. Well, except for things like honesty, virtue, etc. As Joseph Smith said, we are taught correct principles, and then we are allowed to live as we see fit.

Mormons believe that the Constitution of the US is a divinely inspired document.|||December 6, 2007

"Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.|||presumed by Mitt Romney, as a politician, is not taking orders from anyone except his constituents. Mitt Romney is probably the best candidate because he's shown his religious life doesn't interfere with his job. Just look at the legislation he's done in his state.|||No. He is free to make his own decisions, but his choices are influenced by his faith and upbringing, just like everyone else.|||I'm Agnostic and Mormons are among my favorite people. They don't try to force their thing on anyone. Romney would never legislate his Religion on others, that's against his Religion.|||Has obama disassociated himself from the Imams?|||He's a mormon|||I don't think you know enough about Mormon's .|||They ride around in thick wool black suits on bicycles in 100 degree weather.. What does that say about their commitment to mormonism, and their judgement?

What are the chances that a "public option" will remain a part of health care reform legislation?

based on everything out there, what are the chances that health care reform legislation with a public option passes this year?|||Obama wants it in there, Nancy says it wont pass without one. It needs one, people are desperate and hospitals are closing left and right.|||Slim to none.|||I don't think he is going to give up easily.|||Public opinion is important because you and I will have to pay for health care and hope for the best. Obama said he would pass it this summer but has now changed it to his first term. If he pushes this one thru there will be hell to pay from angry Americans. I believe he will try.

Are there any laws or legislation regarding Bike Light and what are they?

Hi, i am currently a GCSE electronics student and i am creating a Bike Light.

I would just like to know if there are any laws or legislation for making a bike light such as the color of the LEDs, etc.

Thanks|||You don't say where you are, but in the USA, I do believe that one is going to be handled by local ordinances. It definitely makes it more of a pain. For the design phases, I would look to make the colors changeable with different colors of LEDs and reflectors. Personally, I don't like to get too far ahead of myself in a design process. Worry about the marketing phase when you get to it, but... It probably isn't too early to start surfing a few patent lawyer sites.|||For safety, I would guess, but do not know for sure, that you should conform to the basics of automotive law. That is, red in the rear and white or amber in the front.

Look at what's on the market now, you will see design similarities among the products.

Before you market your product, you should hire a lawyer specialized in product evaluation.

Do you think Obama will be signing any more liberal legislation between now and Jan. 2013?

Republicans were quite happy with the last big piece of legislation he signed extending some of Bush's tax cuts. Maybe he will sign more Conservative Bills.|||He can't anyway. No democrratsw.|||Jeepers Creepers!! PEOPLE, if you want respect for your beliefs and want to be heard, STOP GENERALIZING and start paying attention to issues and quite rooting for you "team". This is ridiculous!|||I was not happy with that bill. Extending UE is a mistake. %26amp; I dare say there will be very little signed.|||As the Orange man might put it...."Hell NO"

Many people think that a national lobby's successful fight against gun control legislation is reflecting the w?

Many people think that a national lobby's successful fight against gun control legislation is reflecting the will of a minority of Americans. A previous random sample of 4000 citizens yielded 2250 who are in favor of gun control legislation. How many citizens would need to be sampled if a 90% confidence interval was desired to estimate the true proportion to within 5%?





Which of these four numbers is the answer?|||n = ( Z/E)^2(pq) = ( 1.645 / .05 )^2 ( 0.246 ) = 266.37

minimum sample size is 267

Explain relevant regulation and legislation relating to diversity and inclusion and discrimination?

Explain relevant regulation and legislation relating to diversity and inclusion and discrimination for reasons other then disability.

Can anyone help me with this one, i have a retail shop and want to ensure that i meet the requirements.

Thanks|||Pity you didn't say which country you are in!

Different countries have different regulations!

The dominant piece of legislation concerned with worker safety and health is the?

The dominant piece of legislation concerned with worker safety and health is the

A) Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1985.

B) Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

C) Workplace Safety Act of 1975.

D) Employee Survival and Security Act of 1969.|||B) Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

It created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

Should there be new legislation making it mandatory for AIDS victims to get a bio-hazard tattoo?

I think anyone diagnosed with AIDS should be required to get a bio-hazard tattoo just above their genitalia. Do you think such legislation could ever be passed? Why or why not? Thanks :)|||No

What you are suggesting would end up being cruel and unusual punishment for something that may not have been in their control.

Would it be passed in the US? Extremely doubtful.|||Why not just "I have AIDS" tattooed above there genitals?|||I think your approach was tried in Germany in the 40's. Did not work out so well.|||that's an idea..............I have another one.............why not tattoo on peoples foreheads that if their IQ is below normal........have their score on their forehead....what do you think?|||Nein, Mein Fruend! Right to privacy under the HIPAA should NOT be compromised to make Homophobes and National Socialists feel good.

I do agree that people infected with any STD MUST be required by law to reveal their STD status to potential partners. In the 80s, Gay rights activists got many states to remove HIV/ AIDs from the individual State(s) List of Infectious Diseases and thus an infected person could NOT be forced to divulge partners ort be forced to refrain from unprotected sex.


BTW the act of Tattooing an AIDS victim (YES, VICTIM) would unnecessarily expose the Tattoo artist, their equipment and others to HIV/AIDS.

edit: Yeah they replace needles, but what about the OTHER equipment used?

As they used to say about hair gel, "A little dab will do you!"

you may have said victim but You are making their Malady sound like a criminal act!

Exam question help: Comparison of the degree of employment protection legislation in the US and the UK?

I'm doing an exam paper with the following problem statement:

"Compare and contrast the degree and nature of employment protection legislation in the US and the UK, and explain possible reasons for the differences or similarities found".

So far I've established that the UK has more employment protection legislation than the US, but both have comparably low employment protection legislation compared to OECD averages.

Does anyone have any suggestions for reasons for the differences and similarities found? It could be anything: economic reason, political reasons, trade union history, cultural values, or anything else I haven't thought of.

Any thoughts would be appreciated :)|||One of the most consistent findings in the literature on employment protection legislation (EPL) has to do with the legal traditions of the country. Both the US and UK are common law systems, and as such are much more likely to have lower levels of EPL than countries with civil law legal traditions (see Botero et. al.).

You are off to a good start with the OECD data. Venn's update to the data certainly improved the accuracy of the indicators; however, be aware that the difference in the level of EPL as coded by the OECD may not accurately portray the qualitative difference between EPL in the two countries.

There are several alternative explanations of the variation in EPL arrangements which may be of use to you in this exam, I would point you to the works below for a good survey of the current explanations for variance in EPL. In your position, I would classify the explanations according to culture (religion, civic attitudes), competition for international economic activity (Race to the Bottom and Diffusion hypotheses), and economic arguments (those based on individual actors and their preferences, eg Saint Paul ). By comparing the changes in EPL over time between the two countries, you have the opportunity to assess the explanatory power of these explanations and perhaps propose some alternative ones, such as the role of trade unions.

If you have the time and can get access to it, the Stone book may be of particular use to you since it is focused on the US.

Algan, Y. and Cahuc, P. (2006a). Civic attitudes and the design of labor market

institutions: Which countries can implement the Danish Flexicurity Model?

IZA Discussion Papers 1928, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

Algan, Y. and Cahuc, P. (2006b). Job protection: the macho hypothesis. Oxford

Review of Economic Policy, 22(3):390-410.

Boeri, T., Conde-Ruiz, J. I., and Galasso, V. (2003). Protecting against labour

market risk: Employment protection or unemployment bene ts? Working

Papers 2003-17, FEDEA.

Botero, J. C., Djankov, S., Porta, R. L., de Silanes, F. L., and Shliefer, A. (2004).

The regulation of labor. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(4):1339-


Brugemann, B. (2007). Employment protection: Tough to scrap or tough to get?

The Economic Journal, 117:F386-F415.

D'Orlando, F. and Ferrante, F. (2009). The demand for job protection: Some clues

from behavioural economics. Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(1):104-114.

Ferrante, F. (2004). Employment protection legislation and redistribution. Working

paper series, University of Cassino - Faculty of Economics - Department of

Economics (DIPSE).

Kucera, D. (2002). Core labour standards and foreign direct investment. Inter-

national Labour Review, 141(1-2):31{69.

Lazaer, E. P. (1990). Job security provisions and employment. The Quarterly

Journal of Economics, 105(3):699-726.

MacLeod, W. B. and Nakavachara, V. (2007). Wrongful discharge law enhance

employment. The Economic Journal, 117:F218-F278.

Mosley, L. and Uno, S. (2007). Racing to the bottom or climbing to the top?: Economic

globalization and collective labor rights. Comparative Political Studies,


Saint-Paul, G. (1996). Exploring the political economiy of labour market institutions.

Economic Policy, 11(23):265-315.

Saint-Paul, G. (2002). The political economy of employment protection. Journal

of Political Economy, 110(3):672-701.

Simmons, B. and Elkins, Z. (2004). The globalization of liberalization: Policy

di usion in the international political economy. American Political Science

Review, 98(1):171-189.

Stone, K. V. W. (2004). From Widgets to Digits: Employment Regulation for the

Changing Workplace. Cambridge University Press.

Venn, D. (2009). Legislation, collective bargaining and enforcement: Updating the

OECD employment protection indicators. Technical report, Organisation for

Economic Co-Operation and Development.|||In the US, there is a strong philosophy of "at will employment" which means that employers can terminate employees for any reason at any time, unless there are circumstances which make the employee a protected class. (Such as you cant fire a women for getting pregnant, or you cant fire someone someone because of their race or religion).

While that seems like most of the power is in the hand of the employer, consider that the US does not have much of any apprentice system, so an employer can invest lots of money into training someone, who leaves the business whenever they wish, having being trained for free. So it kind of goes both ways.

How is the legislation concerning alcohol consumption in Denmark?

Why is this legislation so strong?|||鈥?/a>

The above link may help.

I had no idea thought it was much the same as anywhere else|||To save money on alcohol treatment programs? Or to stop binge drinking. Ain't Dansih, so I don't know!|||Strong? Hop on a boat to'll find the Danes are positively liberal by comparison! There may be two drivers to the relatively tough drinking laws in Scandinavia. One is the fact when some of them start drinking it can be a policy decision, and not just a passing fancy. The other is the influence of the Church. Most Scandinavians contribute to the Church in their pay packets and it probably still has a far greater sway over such matters than in the UK.

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Why does Greenpeace not support the cap and trade legislation?

OBVIOUSLY they support the environment, so what aspect of the legislation don't they like?|||They think it doesn't go far enough.

"Since the Waxman-Markey bill left the Energy and Commerce committee, yet another fleet of industry lobbysists has weakened the bill even more, and further widened the gap between what Waxman-Markey does and what science demands. As a result, Greenpeace opposes this bill in its current form. We are calling upon Congress to vote against this bill unless substantial measures are taken to strengthen it."|||The don't think it goes far enough.|||They think it should be tougher.

What is some basic information on the Jim Crow legislation?

I'd like to know some basic information on the Jim Crow legislation in the South for an assignment I'm doing on "Black Boy" by Richard Wright.|||In the United States, the Jim Crow laws were made to enforce racial segregation, and included laws that would prevent African Americans from doing things that a white person could do. For instance, Jim Crow laws regulated separate use of water fountains and separate seating sections on public transport. Jim Crow laws varied among communities and states. The term is not applied to all racist laws, but only to those passed post-Reconstruction starting in about 1890, the start of a period of worsening race relations in the United States. Similar laws passed immediately after the civil war were called the Black Codes.

The conclusion of the American Civil War in 1865 led to the policy of Reconstruction, in which the federal government intervened to protect the rights conferred on black Americans by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as (upon their introductions) the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Civil Rights Act of 1875. In almost-immediate response Southern legislatures passed Black Codes, which attempted to return freed slaves to bondage in legal fact, rather than official terminology.

This government-controlled Reconstruction ended by 1877. In its aftermath the resurgent white elites, who referred to themselves as Redeemers, reversed many of the civil rights gains that black Americans had made during Reconstruction, passing laws that mandated discrimination by both local governments and by private citizens. These became known as the Jim Crow laws, a reference to the character Jim Crow (popular in antebellum minstrel entertainment) that was a racist stage depiction of a poor and uneducated rural black. Since Jim Crow law is a blanket term for any of this type of legislation following the end of Reconstruction, the exact date of inception for the laws is difficult to isolate; common consensus points to the 1890s and the adoption of segregational railroad legislation in New Orleans as the first genuine "Jim Crow" law. By 1915 every Southern state had effectively destroyed any gains in civil liberties that blacks had enjoyed due to the Reconstructionist effort.

As an example, many state governments prevented blacks from voting by requiring poll taxes and literacy tests, both of which were not enforced on whites due to grandfather clauses. One common "literacy test" was to require the black would-be voter to recite the entire U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence from memory.

The Supreme Court of the United States held in the Civil Rights Cases 109 US 3 (1883) that the Fourteenth Amendment did not give the federal government the power to outlaw private discrimination, then held in Plessy v. Ferguson 163 US 537 (1896) that Jim Crow laws were constitutional as long as they allowed for separate but equal facilities. In the years that followed, the Court made this "separate but equal" requirement a hollow phrase by approving discrimination even in the face of evidence of profound inequalities in practice.

It is estimated that of 181,471 African-American males of voting age in Alabama in 1900, only 3,000 were registered.

In 1902, Reverend Thomas Dixon published the novel The Leopard's Spots, which intentionally fanned racial animosity.

The Supreme Court began to overturn Jim Crow laws on constitutional grounds in the 20th century. The Supreme Court held in Guinn v. United States 238 US 347 (1915) that an Oklahoma law that denied the right to vote to some citizens was unconstitutional. (Nonetheless, the majority of African Americans were unable to vote in most states in the Deep South of the USA until the 1950s or 1960s.) In Buchanan v. Warley 245 US 60 (1917), the Court held that a Kentucky law could not require residential segregation. The court outlawed the white primary in Smith v. Allwright 321 US 649 (1944), and in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka 347 US 483 (1954) the Court held that separate facilities were inherently unequal in the area of public schools. These decisions, along with other cases such as McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Board of Regents 339 US 637 (1950), NAACP v. Alabama 357 US 449 (1958), and Boynton v. Virginia 364 US 454 (1960), slowly dismantled the state-sponsored segregation imposed by Jim Crow laws.|||Stephanie,

Starting in the 1890s, about a quarter century after the Civil War, the Southern States began to pass laws making it illegal for blacks and whites to share the same public transport, use the same parks, or even, in some cases, be in the same room together. Some states passed curfews making it illegal for blacks to be outside after 9:00 or 10:00 o'clock. Ultimately nearly every aspect of life was regulated by race. The purpose was to enforce the idea that whites were superior to blacks.

Check out The Warmth of Other Suns by Isabel Wilkerson. It's about the Great Migration of blacks leaving the South in the early 20th century. The chapter entitled "The Stirrings of Discontent" will give you a very clear picture of the Jim Crow period. There's also a classic book on the subject called The Strange Case of Jim Crow by C. Vann Woodward. It talks the origins of segregation.|||You are reading some very profound literature! Open your mind to the insensitive treatment of one human population upon another.

Jim Crow Legislation Overview

By Susan Falck, M.A., Research Associate

California State University--Northridge, California

"There is no wonder that we die," an Alabama woman sighed,

"The wonder is that we persist in living."

"The ***** Problem," The Independent, September 18, 1902

More than 400 state laws, constitutional amendments, and city ordinances legalizing segregation and discrimination were passed in the United States between 1865 and 1967. These laws governed nearly every aspect of daily life, from education to public transportation, from health care and housing to the use of public facilities. African-American children got their first taste of racial discrimination when they found themselves barred from attending school with white children, and being sent, instead, to inferior facilities.

Growing up, these children learned that their lives were equally restricted outside the classroom. They were forbidden from sharing a bus seat with a white passenger or to ride in the same compartment of a train. They were denied access to public parks and restaurants, and, in some states, were forced to enter public amusements like the circus through a separate entrance. Black movie theater patrons were seated in the balcony, separated from white customers in what was commonly referred to as "****** heaven." When they went to work, African Americans were forced to use separate entrances and bathrooms and to collect their paychecks at separate windows. Even in death, legislation ensured that the races would remain separate. Several states prohibited hearses from carrying both races, and cemeteries were required to maintain separate graveyards.

While the majority of Jim Crow laws discriminated specifically against African Americans, other minority groups also were frequently targeted. Western states routinely passed discriminatory legislation against Asians and Native Americans, passing 51 Jim Crow laws, 12 percent of the nation's total. Outside the South, California passed more Jim Crow laws (17) than any other state in the country.

Miscegenation statutes, intended to prevent racial interbreeding, led the list of Jim Crow laws enacted. At least 127 laws prohibiting interracial marriage and cohabitation were passed between 1865 and the 1950s nationwide, with 37 percent of the statutes passed outside the South. Western states enacted 33 such laws (27 percent). Both whites and blacks who ignored the law could receive sentences for up to ten years hard labor in the penitentiary in a number of states. Punishment for miscegenation in state statutes was still in force in the 1960s in Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, and North Carolina.

Further testament that racism existed nationwide is evident in education laws. States outside the South enacted 23 percent of the laws that authorized segregated schools. Likewise, seven of the 12 laws that required race to be considered in adoption petitions were passed outside of the South.|||PAPER

Have the Republicans in Congress supported ANY Democratic sponsored legislation this year?

GOP against all health care details, but yet, did nothing from 1994-2006 in Congress or 2000-2008 in White House.

Blocked Oil company $75 million liability limits 3 times since Gulf oil spill crisis.

Blocked any significant Financial Industry Regulation legislation.

Why should I even consider a GOP candidate in Fall elections or in 2012?|||If they want my vote ,they better remain the party of no.As it is I will not vote for incumbents because most are tainted.I want some fresh new faces with better ideas to fix this mess America is in.|||None of it was worth supporting.

Most Americans didn't want the health care bill, that's why super majorities of democrats had so much trouble passing it.

Voting "no" on it was the right thing to do.|||Thank God they haven't. Gives me some hope.|||That would go against the wishes of their corporate masters...|||No. And you were not going to consider a GOP candidate Fall 2012 anyway. Be honest...|||The Dumbocrats haven't let the Republicans help write any of them. Why would the Republicans vote for something that they weren't allowed to help write.|||They blocked it all because it was a raw deal for America and they knew it. They stood up for their constituents instead of selling out to the lobbies and the president while ignoring their constituents.|||The Democrat health care plan makes health care more expensive and less available for most Americans.

The Democrat "Financial Industry Regulation" would have destroyed small, community banks which did nothing wrong and acted responsibly.

Why vote GOP? Because Democrats have done nothing but harm this country, and the GOP at least slowed them down.|||When the DEMOCRAT LEGISLATION isn't a MONEY GRAB... then we'll talk.

Without EXCEPTION - every piece of crap legislation that has come out of this DEMOCRAT RUN CONGRESS has been MORE OF THE SAME - SPEND SPEND SPEND... GROW GOVERNMENT.

Cash For Clunkers? Why should OTHER PEOPLE pay me to RETIRE a car I could have used for the next 4 years?

You should consider a GOP candidate because we are MORE LIKELY to STOP the madness.|||Nope that is the proof in the pudding that the GOP is once again united and stand shoulder to shoulder to stop the liberals in their socialist agenda. That is why you should vote for the GOP. Put us back on the much needed path of fiscal restraint.|||if a republican vote yes on any democrat bill.. they need to be voted out of office

no ifs ands or butts,

and mccidiot is just now figuring that out, real shame it didn't back in nov of 08|||Yes, Robert Casey's bill.

The bill could cost $8 billion over 10 years to provide protection for defined-benefit retirement benefits of workers whose employer goes bankrupt or no longer contributes to a multiple-employer pension plan, said Casey aide Larry Smar. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., a federal agency insuring pensions, would guarantee the benefits.

Republican Rep. Latourette from Ohio even went so far to call Fox news weenies and pinheads because of there lies about the bill.

What bills/legislation or acts has This Admin/congress passed that are violations of the constituition, if any?

What bills/legislation or acts has This Administration and Congress passed that are violations of the constituition, if any? I am not asking about privious administrations just The Obama Presidency and the Congress during his reign And part two Has Obama fought against any of the Bills which could be considered violations?|||Keeping in mind that people read what they want to INTO and OUT OF the Constitution, but for my money ...

1. Cash for Clunkers is Un-Constitutional. I mean ... the Federal Government can take MY MONEY and YOURS and bribe people into trading in their old cars to be destroyed and buy new ones?

2. The ban on off shore drilling? The Federal Government has the power to tell private companies that they can't drill in open waters off our shorelines???

3. Obama Care. The Federal Government can just take over health care and mandate to its citizens that you MUST buy into it?

4. The takeover of Chrysler. Do you realize that the Obama Administration TOLD Chrysler to merge with FIAT??? That's Constituiional?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

There is probably more, but that's off the top of my head.|||The Supreme Court has not ruled any bill/legislation unconstitutional.

A citizen's opinion that something is unconstitutional doesn't make it so.|||Boring...|||none that i know of...the supreme court wouldn't allow it

What's the obstacles and the opportunities to save the Murray ? How does legislation help with this process?

I'm wondering how we can save the Murray darling basin %26amp; what's the obstacle there %26amp; how legislation can sort out this obstacle.|||Of course, the basin will always be there, so don''t worry...

In all seriousness, however, saving the flow and usefulness of the Murray-Darling is going to be painful. Because of that basin's (along with many others in Australia) patterns of plenty and drought, it's been easy during plentiful years to increase utilization and dependence well beyond what the river can handle in average years. There is simply less water in the basin than people think they need to take from it.

The only solution is to reduce consumption. This is hard, because there's no painless way of doing this.

Voluntary conservation is easy, but won't ever amount to any significance (a farmer isn't going to 'voluntarily' reduce his crop, especially if other farmers gain the short term benefit of his action).

The real solution is to incorporate all stakeholders in redefining the costs of using the Darling's water. Because you don't really pay a direct fee for the water taken from the river, you take as much as you need/feel you can get away with. There's no incentive to be sparing or efficient.

Charging everybody the real costs will mean that uses for water that are better done elsewhere will and only the the most valuable uses will continue (probably municipal water in the greater Adelaide area, but not exclusively).

The sad part of this is that it will largely end farming in the basin (and thus many of the communities that are there). It will also make Adelaide more expensive to live in. It's sad, but quite frankly, those uses and communities were never tenable in the first place- Australia's a dry place, with occasional outliers of wet.

Since the political elite are currently demonizing "the rich" shall we expect legislation written to greatly?

benefit them?

For example they demonized Wall Street and then bailed them out, they demonized health insurers and then wrote legislation that greatly benefitted the industry.

What say you?|||This isn't hypocritical, but more along the lines of a crime. For what the Dems and their media lap dogs do is demonized industries to such an extent that there is a public outcry for something to be done ... at which point those that created the target can exert power over them in regulations and/or takeovers that serve to bolster their power over what were private industries prior. This isn't rocket science.|||No chance. The "elite" you speak of are all Democrats, so they will just find a way of making themselves exempt from whatever law they pass. Or, they will just follow the example of Tax Cheat Geithner and Charlie Wrangle, and not pay taxes anyway!|||You see how hard the top 2% cried at the thought of ending their tax breaks . An additional 3.5% . Poor , down trodden millionaires .|||I say you have proven that they are not demonizing the rich and that is only another right wing catch phrase.

What are the consequences of management not abiding by legislation and regulations?

Consider a scenario where an employee receives a life threatening injury as a result of electrocution whilst working with faulty equipment provided by the company, What are the consequences of management not abiding by legislation and regulations in this scenario.|||The employer is obliged to take out insurance to protect his employers, but if it is discovered that he didn't bother to check the equipment with the result that it was faulty, the insurance company can sue the employer for the return of money paid out in compensation.

The consequences could be disastrous in financial terms when the employee sues them for compensation.|||The company will almost certainly have broken some part of the Health %26amp; Safety at Work Act 1974 for failing to keep its employee safe. Obviously you can't imprison a company, but its directors can be prosecuted for failing to ensure a safe workplace and the punishment on conviction would be a large fine.

If the company isn't insured for employee accidents, it could be prosecuted for that too.

That takes account of criminal law. In civil law the employee can sue for compensation.

So that's potentially three court cases the company could end up in, all very expensive.|||If they have been made aware of the fault and its potential life threatening affects they could be charged wit criminal negligence. You can sue for damages. The manager could go to prison.|||If tried in court, a very very large settlement, and even more taken from the company.

Have the UK's year old legislation against age discrimination worked at workplaces?

It is exactly a year since the new legislation in the U.K. against age discrimination in employment came into effect. Yet not one word has been said about it at either the Labour, Lib-Dem or the Conservative Party conferences. How has it affected your workplace? Has it worked better or worse than previous legislation against discrimination on grounds of race or religion and discrimination on grounds of gender, and basically do you agree or disagree with such legislation being on the statute book.|||No with a few exceptions it seems employers are successfully dodging it by tricks like just not bothering to answer any application for employment believed to be old. Likewise many refuse to answer applications from somebody thought to be of a race or religion they do not want or of a different gender but they never communicate with the applicant so they can not be called to account under the referred to legislation. However I have noted in my company a changed policy in not sacking older workers over 65 so readily as they used to now they can be taken to an unfair dismissals tribunal by workers over 65, which could not be done before the legislation came in. Racial descrimination is certainly going on too. For example I know for a fact that in the hospitality business most employers will not recruit anybody of presumed British nationality as nowadays for such jobs as "Hotel porter" they only want applicants from abroad like Polish or Estonian so that legislastion is not working either?

Interesting you mention that none of the Party Conferences want to commit themselves on this because they are all after the youth vote. We should bear in mind that the employment legislation you refer to did not emanate from any desire in the Labour government to end age discrimination in employment but because of a European Union Directive which if the truth be known all our politicians did not like. The huge flaw in the legislation that came in a year ago is that it did not ban a compulsory retiring age, and I personally considef it outrageous that the age a person retires from work should still be determined entirely by their date of birth, irrespective as to their ability or otherwise to do the job, their physical and mental health and their qualifications and experiencew, so yes this sort of legislation should be supported..|||It has not affected our work place in the slightest. I do agree that people should not be discriminated against, so agree that this is on the statue book.

There have been many examples of times when people are fired, age being a factor, as well as the problem with older people who are out of a job finding it hard to find employment of the sort they are trained to do.