This law supposedly allows city or county governments the ability to ban the practice of leaving flyers or other commercial advertisements on residential doors. I heard that the FEDERAL supreme court overturned this many years ago and ruled it unconstitutional towards businesses. Any information on where I can get a copy of this law or ordinance would be greatly appreciated, thanks!!!!!!!!
122140
"Green River Ordinances" were a kind of local ordinance prohibiting commercial flyers, door-to-door solicitations, etc., that the US Supreme Court had found unconstitutional in the 1930s.\n\nThere is no one ordinance.\n\nIn more recent cases, the US Supreme Court has overruled that decision or seriously undermined it. For an excellent brief discussion of the law in this area, go here: http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Legal/nuisances/nu-pedIntro.aspx
412167
try www.findlaw.com     \nzabasearch\ngood luck!
52383
The Fair Housing Act is only limited to certain types of discrimination, such as discrimination based on religion, raced and family status.  If you are a vegan and only want to rent to other vegans, there is no law against that.\n\nIn the case of a traditional newspaper, most advertisments are listed for a fee and screened by the newspaper.   Craigslist is a forum where people can post messages and advertisements at no charge.  I don't think it should be up to Craigslist to screen the advertisements.  As the saying goes, don't shoot the messenger.
349585
What a travesty of justice, the judge needs to be disbarred and thrown bodily off his/her bench.  I think its very patriotic of the mayor of Hazelton that he decided to continue the fight, this is what all Americans need to do, take the fight to the legal system, challenge the status quo, set precedents that serve the best interests of this country.  Any one want to take up residence in Hazelton to displace the criminal trespassing element?, That would be very patriotic.  Thanks for the informative article.
601529
Eggsactly .......  and pedestrians were banned as they would always be walking on eggshells ,,,,,,,,  but cars were always breaking down on the new road until someone told them to 'pull their yolk out' and drive to a Shell garage. But the yolk was actually on the town planners who ended up with co*k ups and down the new road. And when a local reporter asked them for their view on the whole matter, they replied 'Fowl!'.  First to go were the 'battery' hens for fear that they would try and 'start something' ..... their eggs were laid 'to rest' until someone broke in an poached them while the others scrambled. And all for chickenfeed!\nEggsciting?   Eggshilerating?  Eggasperating? And did they give them free range?  Or simply feathering their own nests?  Any for an omelette?
569203
Here's a random sampling from DumbLaw.com:\n\nOrdinance number 223, of 09/09/19 prohibits the installation and usage of slot machines in outhouses.\n\nIt is against the law to serenade your girlfriend.\n\nThose wishing to purchase a television must also buy a license.\n\nThrowing a snake at anyone is illegal.\n\nThe mere possession of a lottery ticket is illegal in North Carolina and may result in a $2,000 fine.\n\nIt is illegal for the owner of a bar to allow anyone inside to pretend to have sex with a buffalo.\n\nIt is unlawful to change clothes in an automobile with the curtains drawn, except in case of fire.\n\nYou may not take a picture of a rabbit from January to April without an official permit.\n\nThe sale of gum is prohibited.\n\nNo person may water his lawn in such a way as to annoy his or her neighbor.\n\nIt is illegal to jump into a passing car.\n\nA law from the early 1900's prohibits men from going topless on the Boardwalk.\n\nCars whose license plates end with a 1 or 2 are not allowed on the roads on Monday, 3 or 4 on Tuesday, 5 or 6 on Wednesday, 7 or 8 on Thursday, and 9 or 0 on Friday from 7:00 A.\n\nIt is illegal for stores to sell corn flakes on Sunday.\n\nOne may not allow his or her dog to chase a squirrel in the summer.\n\nIt is considered an offense to shower naked.\n\nIf you are convicted of littering three times, you will have to clean the streets on Sundays with a bib on saying, I am a litterer.\n\nIt is illegal to have sex with a cow.
99074
This may not be helpful for your homework, but it seems like ALL laws curtail personal freedoms, while being intended to protect society in some way.  It seems like the only laws that would NOT make your list would be laws that you believed were wrong because they actually did nothing useful to protect society.\n\nMaybe your teacher has something grander in mind, but from the way you described the question, it seems like you could pick any 4 traffic laws or parking ordinances even.
33166
Ridiculous.  Is the law requiring cars to stop at a stop sign based on a Nazi law?  Because the laws are remarkably similar to laws in Nazi Germany requiring cars to stop at stop signs.\n\n(One group has claimed that the origin of the distinction between guns suitable for sporting use and other guns comes from Nazi Germany.  And the group further claims that when the Brady Bill attempts to outlaw private ownership of semi-automatic weapons (which are only good for killing large numbers of people quickly, in war or otherwise, or practising to do so) it is applying this distinction first developed in Nazi law.  But 1) that is a far cry from the Brady Bill being a "translation" of Nazi legislation, 2) the Brady Bill ban on selected semi-automatic weapons is not the same as a ban on private ownership of any weapon not suitable for sporting use, and 3) the concept of a ban on such weapons in private hands goes back way before the Nazis, and existed throughout Europe, back into the days of Kings and nobility.  It was not invented by the Nazis.\n\nOppose gun control if you like.  But this is not a reason to do so.
19251
Seems like that is a pretty timely question.  I found this News Article from last week where they say, "is the center of debate for many states who are now considering whether to legislate what people are watching in their cars. "\n\nCheck out the source below for more information
372441
Boy this forum just got polluted by anti-smokers, offering "words of encouragement", but they are just veiled statements of their preference.\n\nBar business really does hurt when bans are forced and nonsmoking is not the choice of the owner. Owners do make choices to be nonsmoking when they know their clientele demands it. It just depends on your clientele. However, at this time, there is NO CHOICE for the private business owner in this land of supposed liberty.\n\n"Studies" showing business improvement when a ban is FORCED on a business are full of cherry picked data including everything from CARRY OUT receipts to McDonald's to 5 star restaurants. There has never been a study for stand alone bars.\n\nSmokefree lobbyists offer hollow promises of "business improvement", but that is all they are. Promises. Columbus bars have taken such a hit and made many cutbacks including reduced hours and waitstaff, cutting out live entertainment, etc.. to just survive.\n\nColumbus bars also immediately built patios.What does that tell you? The clientele they want to keep INCLUDE the smokers. However, smokers resent having to go outside in the cold and being treated like some neo Jim Crow experiment and generally do not patronize bars in the winter months.\n\nIf you serve food, you may be able to salvage something concerning all of this.\n\nI am SO sorry I cannot be more positive about this, especially since you seem like a very nice person who is new to the bar business. I simply cannot and will not sugar coat the situation, though as that would not be kind either.\n\nI have seen my business drop ever since the Columbus ban went into effect, it was immediate and it has not recovered. I took my bands out of town and did well in the bars, but now that option looks very bleak also.\n\nYou will have to be creative on this one until another repeal comes up, just as I was forced to do and will have to think through yet another plan with this statewide antismoking wrench thrown in the mix. \n\nPerhaps you should consider even "going underground". The reason why not many bars have closed in Columbus is many are not following the ban and are just paying the fines. I am sure Smokefree Ohio being the fanatics they are have put in some stiffer fines knowing that a good deal of Columbus bars told Smokefree Columbus to rightfully go directly to hell.\n\nThe ones that have closed generally do not make the local papers as the media is biased toward the antismoking side.\n\nBars must join together again to get some exemptions. Don't worry antis, you will have many smokefree choices as you do now with a partial repeal of this draconian law. Forcing your will on ALL the businesses in Ohio was not wanted and was not appreciated.\n\nI hope you were aware before of this possibility of Issue 5 passing and promoted Issue 4. If not, please be informed when the next repeal vote comes up. It is your business.\nI am not assuming you didn't know, but I have run into bar owners and bowling alley owners in different areas of the state that ignored this thinking it could never happen.\n\nIt did, but with only 8%+ of the votes needed to pass. Plus the election turnout wasn't 100%. There is still hope. Get busy, talk to your alcohol vendors and see if they have a plan in place yet to help you weather the storm until Ohio wakes up and says "no" to fascism and social engineering of people who choose to use a legal product.\n\nBut you will never see an antismoking lobbyist in favor of what would really solve the problem. Making tobacco illegal would "level the playing field". As it is now, the antismoking cartel are just playing with private business owners livelihoods while gathering a comfortable paycheck. They will never favor tobacco prohibition as they would have to find an honest job.
346973
Only for non-US citizens.\n\nThe MCA directly contradicts Supreme Court precedent, and the plain text of the constitution, which mandates that 5th and 6th Amendment protections apply to anyone held in custody by the US govt, and anyone prosecuted by the US govt.\n\nIt also directly violates Article I Section 9, by suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus. As the Supreme Court ruled over a hundred years ago, the phrase "except during rebellion or invasion when the public safety may require it" means that as long as the federal courts are open for business, they can hear Habeas petitions for anyone detained or held prisoner by the federal government.  \n\nThe law is facially unconstitutional. The only question is, can someone come up with a creative jurisdictional standing argument and find a way to get a federal court to hear the constitutional challenge?
317837
You are supposed to not work and hang out in your states Legislature on a daily basis, As most attorneys do not even know the whole law and revisions......Remember my post about the mustang in the living room, The restraining order was from Broward County (Ft Lauderdale) My 2 attorneys didnt even know that they had recently been revised to Statewide!!!! I was Looking at Up to Life for that One,Burgulary of an occupied dwelling using a vehicle as an instrumantallity to commit Burgulary!!! MY OWN HOUSE!!!! Or our 2nd home!!! Since my marriage with my X_WIFE Ive been in more stupid trouble!!!!And Ive never laid a hand on her....Someone in her past did and I got the rath!!!!GOOD LUCK........NJ and NY Have driving w cellphone laws
160132
This was a particularly mind-numbing investigation, but what I turned up was this--  In the CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 889, COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2006 (House of Representatives - April 06, 2006) under Title IV (Miscellaneous) of page H1660, section 414, 'Opinions regarding whether certain facilities create obstructions to navigation,' it says:\n\n"Section 419 of the House bill requires the Coast Guard to  provide an opinion in writing that states whether a proposed wind energy facility would create an obstruction to navigation in any case in which a person requests the Secretary of the Army to take action to permit a wind energy facility under the authority of section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403)."\n\n"The Senate bill does not contain a comparable provision." \n \n"The Conference substitute adopts a provision that prohibits the construction of an offshore wind energy facility in Nantucket Sound unless approved by the Commandant of the Coast Guard."\n\n-------\n\nWhat made this tricky, other than the obtuse legalese everything is written in, is that there are five versions of H.R.889, Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2005, and even though I had read through the entire bill, I never found the above mentioned section 419.  This was because I had read one of the versions that doesn't have a section 419 listed under miscellaneous!\n\nThe Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House version of H.R.889 (Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2005) states in section 419, 'Opinions regarding whether certain facilities create obstructions to navigation':\n\n"In any case in which a person requests the Secretary of the Army to take action to permit a wind energy facility under the authority of section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403), the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall provide an opinion in writing that states whether the proposed facility would create an obstruction to navigation."\n\nOf the eleven officially documented amendments to the bill (7 passed, 1 failed, 3 withdrawn), I found nothing to indicate Section 419, Cape Wind, or offshore wind energy facilities, meaning that it must have only been adopted through a conference proposal as sited in the April 6th report. \n\nAs best I can understand it, all that remains now of Young's efforts to change the bill is the authorization of the Coast Guard Commandant to issue the final ruling on the safe proximity of a wind structure to the shipping lanes, not the originally proposed 1.5 mile restriction. This is the standard procedure that most countries that have these off shore windmills follow, allowing their coast guard equivalent to rule on their placement on a case by case basis.  So, I'm not sure what's so upsetting about this, unless they suspect that the US Coast Guard is in somebody's pocket and will rule unfairly.\n\nAs an aside, Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), in conjunction with Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), has proposed new legislation that would give the govenor of Massachusetts the power to halt the Cape Wind project.
656103
We had something similar passed here last decade.  We called it the LINE ITEM VETO.  It allowed the president to cross out lines of legislation passed before signing it into law.  The purpose was to stop idiot lawmakers from adding totally unrelated items to a bill (ie.  the federal government shall be responsible for determining jurisdictional boundries . > and $50 million shall be approved for pothole repair in Pittsburg)\nThe line item veto allowed the last bit to be stricken from the passed legislation and was intended to undo what has become the main gridlocking habit of the day.  pas a piece of legislation that conbines two or more unassociated things so as to make it unpalatable or to piggyback onething that outerwise would not get passed.\nWe no longer have people up in arms and perhaps this is what your bill is really about,\nIf not, your constitution should have basis to challenge this law, should it pass.
457683
I'm not a lawyer either, but it appears that the provision was repealed in 1971 (165.140 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]). I was going to recommend going to a law library and see if the law librarian would be able to point you to where the old ORS books are stored. If it was recent enough, they might even have them. But I doubt that they would for something this old. That said, the law librarian should be able to tell you how to look up the case that repealed the statute - and I would guess it would have the original text of the law.\n\nHope this helps!
594293
This opinion has nothing to do with exigent circumstances or "knocking if they see a crime occuring through a window."  This also has nothing to do with officer safety as there is a no-knock procedure availble already.  The police in this case did not obtain a no-knock warrant (Michigan does not provide for it), nor did they argue exigent circumstances, which the dissent says they would have probably won on.\n\nI think it is a very bad opinion.  Law enforcement will not follow the law, if it is not enforced against them.  The exclusionary rule was designed to do just that.  It is a joke that the Supreme Court implies this could be remedied through civil suits and proffessionalism in police departments.  I'm willing to bet most police departments are having meetings today or planning them, to get the word out they don't have to knock anymore.\n\nAnd all you people with "nothing to hide" can be consoled by the fact that nothing was found while you are replacing your door frame and front door the police kicked in, and calming down your kids whose home was just invaded by guys with guns. \n\nThis is a direct result of Bush's recent appointments.
413747
If it is a truly residential area it would be in bad taste to put the sign up.\n\nLocal ordinances vary but most important is subdivision indenture and the by laws.\n\nSome allow work from home with small board. Some allow just the practise, but no big trucks coming on regular bases, and no signs lots of people are working from home for various reasons.\n\nFirst check the subdivision by laws, then indenture then zoning and then city statute. The practice may be govern itself, by a requirement to display proper size sign(big enough/public procteaction law). This may not be apply if you have a main office or other office else where. \n\nMy advice is be a good neighbour, if a lawyer neighbour has the sign and it is not in any way in any ones way, ignore it, if it is your desire to put up a sign, be reasonable, about the size shape type and location.\n\nTemporary window signs can always be displayed (removable, keep it for a while to guide a visiting client and pick it up as soon as its function is fulfilled).