Is Compulsory Arbitration Legal and does it violate constitutional rights?
489388
The notion that compulsory arbitration completely abridges all appeal rights on any basis is layperson misunderstanding -- it does not.\n\nCompulsory arbitiration means that the parties must substitute a more informal hearing process for the traditional due process of a judicial trial. However, the arbitrator must still permit the parties a meaningful opportunity to appear and present their positions and the arbitrator must make a neutral decision based upon the evidence appearing on the record.\n\nThe objective of compulsory arbitration is to reduce the cost of litigating a dispute -- not to prevent all judicial review.\n\nA court may review a compulsory arbitration award on the basis of mistake of fact, mistake of law, application of law, and abuse of discretion. A court may not substitute its decision for the opinion of the arbitrator, but it may set aside the arbitration award and require the arbitrator to reconsider the matter in view of the facts on the record, and any opinion of the court as to the harmful error made during arbitration.\n\nThe court may also require that the arbitrator more clearly explain its award so that the court can consider the decision based on the facts set forth on the record.\n\nThe above rules generally prevail with regard to a judicially mandated compulsory arbitration.\n\nWhere parties contractually agree to a private arbitration, under the Federal Arbitration Act (Title 9 U.S.C. 1-16 et. seq.), a different standard applies.\n\n"The Federal Arbitration Act allows a federal court to correct a technical error, to strike all or a portion of an award pertaining to an issue not at all subject to arbitration, and to vacate an award that evidences affirmative misconduct in the arbitral process or the final result or that is completely irrational or exhibits a manifest disregard for the law. These grounds afford an extremely limited review authority, a limitation that is designed to preserve due process but not to permit unnecessary public intrusion into private arbitration procedures." Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Services, Inc., 341 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 08/29/2003) \n\nWith regard to the scope of judicial review, "...arbitrators 'exceed their powers' in this regard not when they merely interpret or apply the governing law incorrectly, but when the award is 'completely irrational;' French, 784 F.2d at 906, or exhibits a 'manifest disregard of law,' Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Cunard Line, Ltd., 943 F.2d 1056, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1991)." Ibid.\n\nThus, courts are only authorized by Congress to undertake a more narrow review of arbitration awards, they are nevertheless still empowered to accord the litigants with a reasoned measure of due process.
746816
it does with restriction..well in malaysia..the federal constitution givel this freedoms..freedom of speech..own property..education..and so on...but..its all withing the words \n" No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law."..\n\nor\n\nAll persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.\n\n(2) Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.\n\nso democracy stands up..only to a certain limit...well be a positivist..look at the bright site.."anything that is let too loose will not bring any good rite?..there should be somekind of restriction to make it right"..people should have their say in a government..but it depends on what kinda say they going to have?..
446122
No, it's not mandatory. No consequencies if you don't vote.
1099151
It depends on what you mean by "actually."\n\nIn a pragmatic sense, whatever the U.S. Supreme Court says is constitutional is "actually" constitutional.\n\nPerhaps you mean, "Should it be constitutional?"  Well, obviously there are arguments on both sides -- and they were raised in Marbury v. Madison -- but I would have to agree with the Supreme Court:  What would REALLY throw off the balance of powers is if there were no checks and balances to prevent Congress from passing unconstitutional laws.\n\nFinally, perhaps you mean, "Was this what the Framers intended?"  Again, this was argued in Marbury v. Madison.  Probably the answer would be that some did, and some didn't.  However, what is the point of writing a constitution that limits the powers of Congress if there's no way to enforce the limitations?
504373
Yes, Yes and Furthermore YES!\n\nAdministration of anything without prior patient conscent, is completely illegal regardless of where you are at.
1099976
Yes it's legal, especially if you haven't responded to your landlords attempts to contact you.  You could try and countersue for pain and suffering caused by humiliation but you'd almost certainly lose.
453522
The general circumstance does not sound legal.  I would go to court and dispute the way this was handled.  By the way, what is an "OWI"?
500889
Members of the military can be sued, with several exceptions.  Members of the military do receive some debt enforcement protections (Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act) and they can not be held accountable for obligations that they cannot fufill do to military obligations (i.e. a landlord can not enforce a lease if a member of the military is restationed or deployed.)  \n\nWhether or not the case belongs in state or federal court depends on what act you are talking about.  There is Title VII of the civil rights act, energy laws, education laws, so on and so and so on.\n\nThe best advice that anyone will give you on this site is that you need to discuss your situation with a lawyer.  Any advice other than that will only be based upon guess work.
96805
I'm not sure what you mean by the term "ONLY laws agreed upon in the U.S. Constitution".  The U.S. Constitution discuss many areas of law that are not on your list such as bankruptcy and patent/trademark law.
1046875
Yes, they are standard clauses. But don't worry...they are rarely enforceable. People need to earn a living, and the law recognizes that.
191922
Our constitution forbids your rights to infringe on others rights.  We all have a right to persue Happiness here in the Good Ole USA.  If you take your life, although you may not agree,  Many will suffer great pain.  It is a permanent solution to a temporary problem and it never solves the problem only spreads it.\n\nEnjoy Life, Today , Tomorrow, and Beyond
1084733
Personally (not professionally) I think it's a great idea, as a legal alternative to lawsuits.\n\nIf two people really want to get together and solve their dispute between them, that should be their choice. Think of it as evolution in action. The loser would not likely make the same mistakes again.\n\nOf course, if we do that, it needs to work better than the current laws allowing arbitration. They are so off-balance that effectively a rich company can prevent a poor person from ever having a chance to be heard, and courts favor arbitration above justice because of the huge backlog of cases.\n\nSo, sure, allow it as an option, but only where both parties agree -- both at the time of the contract AND when the dispute occurs and needs to be resolved. And no lawyers (or other proxies).
391891
Neither constitutional law nor state court eviction proceedings are my bag, but here's a suggested area to look at from what I gathered.  \n\nUSC 28.89.1443 discusses removal of civil rights issues from state court to federal court.  Technically, you aren't asking for removal.  However, it sounds like the fed courts are treating the eviction proceeding as a closed state decision and, thus, your counterclaim (ie - your filing) is precluded. I don't remember the specific statute, civ pro rule or case, but federal questions can be raised at any time.  If the violation encompasses a federal question, I'd go back and essentially say 'ok, so this is a removal request because a federal question of jurisdiction over a civil rights matter that I am claiming on exists.' There might be a case under USC 28.89.1443 to support it such a removal request.  \n\nWith no knowledge of the actual complaint, opinion, etc to examine arguments, this is about all I can think of.  Best of luck.
804776
Hi\nAs far as I know, it is against the law without peole knowing. It also wont be used as viable evidence in any court/tribunal.\n\nYou should, by law be entitled to a witness. IS someone stating otherwise?
332477
yes, it's in the bill of rights, 8th amendment:\n\nExcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
621592
It isn't illegal. The Constitution specifically says the people have the right to assemble and to petition their government for grievances. There is more to it than just the right to sell machine guns to toddlers, you know?\n\nBesides, it is up to the individual Congressman to decide if he is going to listen or not. Remember all the ruckus about the Lobbyists? After a lot of hand-wringing, the Congress has decided they are just going to quietly give the Lobbyists even more access to power. Just because people are angry doesn't mean that anyone in Congress cares about their feelings or their grievances.
751120
No, it is not legally possible to 'lock' clauses in this way. It is contrary to the law regarding articles of association.