I think it is against the first admendment rights. I should be able to put any kind of sign in my vehicle windows (rear window especially) as long as it does not pose a safety hazard.
129491
Good question... call the ACLU.\n\nhttp://www.aclu.org/
671038
Yes, I think it's a big deal, and I am NOT offended to find those words on our coins.  It is one of the very few places that God is still honored in our country.  Should we invalidate the Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights, because they make reference to God?  No!  This country was founded in Christianity, and although I do firmly believe in freedom from religious persecution, I think we've gone way too far on the other side... it is now the Christians who are persecuted, our prayers are not allowed, the very basic principals that this country was founded on are litigated, and all by people claiming to be offended by it... well, you know what?  In many other countries, being the "wrong" religion can get you jailed and executed.  We allow you the God-given right to disagree, but what right do you have to change  who we are?!?!  This country was founded on Christian principals, and you have the right to live here and not be a Christian (although I pray for those lost souls), but that does not mean that you have the right to interfere with my rights, either.  Keep God in all that we do, to honor our forefathers, and honor our FATHER.
20255
I'm not sure about the legality, but I do know that in some states it's enforced, and in others it's not.\n\nNote: Check out the story of the lady who died in Spokane, WA last year.
315439
I dont think that should be allowed.  Other race car drivers look forward to at least attempt to make the race, especially when its a one car team.  Micheal Waltrip should have sucked it up and left.
521271
There is nothing legally preventing it unless he has serious driving related offensed (DWI, Fleeing police, Criminal vehicular Operation, etc).  It really depends company to company.  Wouldn't hurt to start calling around now so you can find something.
125050
Nope.  It's private property therefore you have to have permission to use it.  Just because it's a parking lot doesn't mean anyone can park in it or park in it long-term.  Generally they have to say they attempted to warn you that you needed to move, a sign does that, but an employee walking out to the car to inform the owner does also (even if the owner is not there the action shows the employee did attempt to inform you that you were no longer entitled to be there).
507251
It is pointless unless you are caught.  Then, because you were given warning, it is a felony with likely higher punishment.  As far as those signs protecting citizens, they don't.  After all, criminals by definition break the law and have no regard for the law.  It only keeps honest citizens defenseless.\n\nSue
518645
Was the property posted with signs or otherwise made to keep people out? Simple rules of common sense apply. If a reasonably person should have known they were not supposed to be there, then you're guilty.
334397
It's OK, but I would start by introducing the topic. "The idea of requiring potential voters to take and pass a test before being allowed to vote is a controversial one. My team and I concur that this is an unfair requirement which violates many American's constitutional rights."
182874
its legal to install nos in your car just not to use it on the street, but it's legal to use it at the drag strip etc..
379574
I guess its a matter of taste.....I have seen graffiti very artistic and tastefully done, on commerial buildings....But defacing private property or "tagging" is not acceptable~! Thats when is becomes illegal....
151302
I don't think it should be outlawed but i do feel a person or group should have to show good reason and get a permit prior to doing so.  How many would burn a flag in protest if it cost them money to do so.
628824
Gina-\n\nPart of the premise of your question is incorrect. You can still hang some biblical script in courts, and in many places holding your hand on the bible is banned. \n\nThis is a difficult question that actually varries in different states. But at the least it starts with the first ammendment that basically has been interpreted as requiring that Government to refrain from "Establishing" a state religion.\n\nNow, our Founders created this ammendment in a time when a lot of concern wasn't about Bible vs Koran (as an example) but more along the lines of Catholic vs Protestant. So a lot of the basis of beliefs and ultimately the laws they passed were deeply rooted in their christian-based morality. And their requirement that Government not establish a church was to protect against the government fixing on laws that help only one of those churches. If somehow the Government endorsed only laws arising from Protestant beliefs, then all of a sudden deeply moral people from other religions might be persecuted. But since most of the people held a bible as Ok, this was never disputed.\n\nFast forward today and we are not only trying to get along with other Christians, but Muslims, Hindus and Atheists (among others) as americans. In this context, requiring me to hold my hand on the Bible now can be read as attempting to establish Christianity as the "Religious Authority" of the moral code that many people derive law from. \n\nIn many states this practice has been abandoned for exactly that reason, as has the practice of posting the Ten Commandments. However, keep in mind that *in fact* the Ten Commandments has not been universally banned from the courts. In fact, they reside in the US Supreme Court on a mural that also depicts moses. \n\nThe basic test of the 10 Commandments being in a court is that they must be of a historical nature, not an "Establishment" nature. That is, it is fine to have a mural that depicts the 10 Commandments as their part of a rich history of law that most of the West draws on. However, puting them out as a display that basically insists that they *are* law is banned- specifically since one of the commandments requires fealty to the Jewish/Christian god.
118402
Seems a bit of a daft situation and one theat needs to be looked at.\n\nBusinesses can refuse legal tender just as they can refuse to sell you anything at all. There is no obligation on a business to sell goods or provide a service (other than certain statutory ones).
107491
Definate no no in Virginia.  If you plan to drive it on the street.  I'm sure it's o.k. for show cars that are not street legal.
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).
65637
That's the thing. The 4th admendment protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizes, not all searches and seizures unconditionally. Supreme court cases have shown that ... for example, your locker in school can be searched despite the admendment.\n\nI do not believe that any searches prior to getting on an airplane violate the letter, or even the spirit of the law. When you get on an airplane, your rights come secondary to the safety of everyone aboard that plane and the people on the ground who could be harmed if that plane crashes. \n\nThe 4th admendment is to stop the government from knocking down your door and looking for evidence without a warrant. It was from the days where writs of assistance were used to arbitrarily search people's houses.