What do you think of California Governor Gavin Newsom calling for a tax on drinking water?
I see some of these answers don’t care that 360,000 Californians rely on water that does not meet state standards for toxins and that 6 million Californians get their drinking water from companies that have violated state standards at least one time since 2012. Congratulations. You’re saying it’s okay to have another Flint, Michigan situation in your own state. As long as it doesn’t effect you, why should you have to pay for it, right?95 cents per month for households, with $10 per month for companies. If you don’t like that, why do you accept regulatory taxes on your cell phone bill? Those taxes keep going up too. And comparing a tax on water to air is the most ridiculous comparison I’ve ever heard. If LA suddenly had a horrible smog problem, would you be okay with letting people die if the smog was proven to come from certain industries? Or would you support legislation that would get rid of the smog? It’s the same thing here. Clean water is a right, not a privilege. Third world countries beg for clean water. Why does anyone find that we should allow the same issue to occur here?I get that California is an expensive state to live in. That’s why I don’t live there. But anyone who argues that an extra 95 cents a month isn’t worth it for people to feel safe drinking from their own taps, I invite them to take a trip to Tijuana and have a nice big glass of tap water from there. It’s just across the border so it should be a quick trip. A day later, tell me how you feel about your neighbors being relegated to drink similar water.If that’s okay with you, I will lose another chunk of my faith in humanity.Too much of our politics these days is about reacting to situations rather than being proactive before the fact. This is finally a situation where someone is trying to fix things before they get worse. I can’t help but think that’s the better way to go.
Why isn't there more news coverage about the National Popular Vote Act, which provides for the direct election of the president?
Because it’s been making the rounds since 2006, no state has enacted it since 2014, and it’s unlikely to carry any force in the foreseeable future.In order for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia to take effect, enough states to have a majority of votes in the Electoral College need to enact it into law. The collective Electoral Vote total of the states which have enacted the compact is 165 – 105 votes short of bringing the compact into force. It’s going to require additional Republican- and Democrat-dominant states to enact the compact before it takes effect, which, frankly, is not on the table right now.Republicans just won the 2016 election thanks to the Electoral College. Why on Earth would they enact a law to potentially hamstring themselves by empowering populous-state Democrats?The fact is, on the state-level, the Democratic Party is on life support. Republicans are in control of 32 legislatures and 33 governorships. They have total control in 25 states, versus Democrats’ total control in six.Moreover, since Trump’s ascension and victory, Republican support for bypassing or eradicating the Electoral College has tanked. After the 2012 election, 54 percent of Republicans were in favor of using the popular vote to determine the Presidency; but after the 2016 election, only 19 percent of Republicans were in favor of such a proposition.So even if all the remaining Democratic and divided states enacted the compact – and, in the latter case, that would pretty much require Democratic governors trying to force Republican legislatures to take up the measure, which is a ludicrous proposition – you would only reach 263 Electoral Votes.It’s not getting coverage because, in the current political climate, it’s not going to happen. In the meantime, there are far more pressing issues for the media to keep in the public’s attention.
Is it legal to have a "no cell phones" policy for your restaurant, with the stated penalty being confiscation of the cell phone?
In the US you could have virtually any policy you want, however your recourse for a violation is limited. In general violation of a policy is nothing in a legal sense. You can ask someone to leave and if they refuse you could have them criminally trespassed, however, if they are just sitting there ignoring you and you put hands on them it is probably tou going to jail as well as them. This is how bouncers get into trouble, they get violent with people who aren't being violent. Getting physical with someone who isn't being violent is always a risky proposition. Trying to take property away from them that is theirs is theft, regardless of your policy. They could actually legally use violence against you to prevent the theft.In short, you can have the policy but any attempt to take or refuse to give their property back when requested will lead to charges and lawsuits against you. If you have a problem ask the person to turn it off, if they refuse then tell them to leave, be very specific that they are to leave, don't give options. As long as you give options they haven't been ordered to leave. You are in a far better legal position in this regard if you do that.
Does U.S. Federal law actually forbid people to shout "fire" in a crowded theater?
The issue is not shouting fire in a theater, per se. It is creating a dangerous situation when doing so is unnecessary. Saying or shouting anything which causes people to panic unnecessarily, and can cause injury, or even worse did cause injury, is the issue at hand. And yes, people are jailed for this kind of conduct. It is called inducing a panic.No one needs to be hurt for you to induce a panic. If someone does get hurt, the charges would be increased based on that. If someone dies directly as a result of the panic you created, the charges would be even greater. Some form of manslaughter, most likely, depending on your intent. If the intent was to cause harm, I imagine we could even see someone charged for murder.You could be charged for inducing a panic if you start telling people that there is a bomb in an airport, for example.The saying, you cannot shout fire in a crowded theater actually comes from an old Supreme Court case about the First Amendment. That case actually dealt with a different issue, which was limitations on speech as related to encouraging people to engage in criminal conduct.The standard from that original case is what was called a clear and present danger. As in, your conduct in shouting fire in a crowded theater caused a clear and present danger. That is no longer the standard, but the saying still exists to explain a broad concept of limitations on your First Amendment rights to say whatever you like.The current standard under the First Amendment for speech is now inciting imminent lawless action. We actually don’t tend to use the fire in a theater thing for this concept any longer. We mainly use it for the concept I discuss in the first paragraph, i.e. inducing a panic.The kind of behavior for which you can be charged under inciting imminent lawless action would involve identifying specific folks to engage in a lawless action and to identify that action. Let’s say you are with a group of friends on the street. You see someone walking down the opposite side of the street. You tell your friends, hey you see that guy over there? We should go kick his ass. And your friends go chasing the other person down the street, and attack him. You stand back figuring you will let them do the dirty work. You clearly imminently incited the lawless action of your friends.