Refusing to cooperate with Democrats is what sank him.
He needed support from Democrats to keep the Speakership. He’s spent the entire year giving them no reason to trust him – including going on the Sunday shows this week knowing this vote was coming and trying to blame Democrats for the near shutdown.
This AI ruling is also actually completely in-line with existing precedent from the photography world.
The US Copyright Office has previously ruled that a photograph taken by a non-human (in this case, a monkey) is not copyrightable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute
Chiming back in here to say that yes, that was exactly my point.
To maybe make it a little clearer, a hypothetical: imagine a Republican-controlled state enacts a law banning late term abortions and makes it punishable with jail time for women to receive one.
That hypothetical law includes a clause defining a late term abortion as one taking place at any time past 37 weeks from conception.
A woman has an abortion at 36 weeks pregnant. Anti-abortion activists insist that she should be culpable under the law; an abortion at 36 weeks is functionally the same as an abortion at 37 weeks and 36 weeks is very obviously late term pregnancy, they claim.
If the local sheriff then arrests that woman, is the sheriff behaving lawfully?
That’s why the government being bound to the letter of the law is so incredibly important. A law can be stupid, harmful, regressive, or otherwise bad in any number of ways, but if the government must act within the law as written, then at least we know what rules we’re playing by and can work to change them.
If the government is allowed to arbitrarily and capriciously ignore the letter of the law in favor of the people enforcing it wish the law were, that will be abused by bad actors. That sort of thing is more or less a universal component of authoritarianism.
tl;dr - we shouldn’t do it because allowing it will allow it to be used against us.
If the law says you can’t kill people by driving into them, and then someone slides into them (intentionally), is that illegal?
It depends on how it’s defined in the law. States generally don’t write laws that define vehicular homicide solely as striking a person specifically with the front of a passenger car for exactly this reason. Further, the need for precision in law is why intentional acts and negligent acts are generally defined separately e.g., murder vs manslaughter.
Beyond that, judges exist and are given sentencing discretion (or at least should be) because there are mitigating circumstances… in other words shit happens.
Discretion in enforcement/prosecution is not the same thing as enforcing something that isn’t defined in law. One is arguably a necessary component of real justice, the other is how authoritarianism functions.
The National Firearms Act has very specific language defining what constitutes a machine gun. It does not include language giving the executive branch power to expand that definition. Either something meets that legal definition and is legally a machine gun or it isn’t.
I’m not even saying that it’s impossible for an enforcing agency to be given those powers – the FDA, for example, has been given pretty sweeping authority to classify drugs. In fact, they have the explicit authority to classify analogs of illegal drugs as illegal. That’s basically the parallel to what’s being discussed here with the NFA and the ATF.
The difference is that Congress hasn’t given the ATF the authority to do so. If you want the law to grant the ability to enforce a less specific definition than what exists in the current law then you need to either change the law to carry a more expansive definition and/or give the enforcing agency the power to make that definition outright. Either of those things would allow the sort of enforcement the other commenter was calling for, but it would be within the letter of the law.
The point wasnt that you can’t enact a particular law or even that you can’t allow for enforcement to be adaptive – it was that rule of law requires that adaptiveness to be defined within the law itself. It’s totally okay if the law says “it depends and here’s who decides.” It’s not okay to decide to enforce the law on the basis of “this is what I feel like the law should do” even if the actual language of the law doesn’t support it.
There’s the letter of the law and then there’s the spirit of the law.
Only the former should be legally enforceable. If you start enforcing the latter regardless of the former, the legal system stops being about rule of law and more about the subjective whims of those enforcing it.
If the letter of the law doesn’t capture the intent, then the law needs to change, but laws shouldn’t be subjectively enforced on the basis of what someone feels like they should mean rather than what they actually say.
It’s SEO-optimization nonsense.
The nature of how firearms are used in film generally requires breaking the normal fundamental rules of firearm safety. You can’t just give somebody a quick rundown of the “four rules” and call it good.
Further, they’re also often modified in ways that change what safety factors need to be considered.
It’s the job of the on-set armorer to make sure firearms are safe and used in a safe manner because it’s not reasonable to expect actors who are firearms laymen to understand everything that plays a factor in what is or isn’t safe.
I do think this case is a little different, but that primarily has to do with Baldwin being a producer.
I also can’t see this part surviving appeal:
Large capacity magazines “are not commonly used for self-defense, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment,” Immergut wrote.
Oregon set the capacity limit at 10 rounds. Practically every handgun commonly used for self-defense has a capacity of at least 15.
The wider international community has largely rejected wars of conquest as legitimate in modern times.
The exact same argument could be applied to Israel and e.g. the Golan Heights, but I don’t think you’ll find that to be a particularly popular position.