Place your bets!
jazzy background music starts playing
Bets must be placed in the form of cookies 🍪
Funny, because even though that’s a total of 95% tax, it reduces $89 million down to $4.45 million, which is still enough to live a ridiculously luxurious lifestyle. For us plebs, that would mean we have to find some way to spend $370,000 every month. It just goes to show how much we under-tax the wealthy in this country.
If your primary source of income is now being taxed at over 70% (50% “sin tax” + 15% income tax + 8% Medicare/social security tax) then that creates a pretty strong incentive to move, because the cost of not moving is even greater.
There is no “I can’t afford to move” at these numbers. At this rate it would make sense to even borrow money to move.
American law name: Sunshine, Happiness, and Rainbows Act
American law contents: There will be a $500 tax to look at a rainbow and the President is authorised to sell exclusive rights to sunshine at an auction to tech bros. Happiness is now a controlled substance and illegal possession of it without a prescription is now punishable by 30 years imprisonment. Also, strawberry ice cream is now banned, $50 million for a bridge in Indiana, and the salary of the Deputy Archivist is increased by 6% starting next fiscal year.
Well, to put it simply, you say “murder” he says “nuh uh”. Now you have to prove he’s wrong and why or he gets off.
Generally speaking, law enforcement can arrest someone based on arrest warrants nationwide, although typically, what happens is that the governor of the state where the crime was committed will make a written extradition demand to the governor of the state where the accused fled to. The receiving governor is constitutionally bound to turn over the person in question, although in reality, for political cases, this can get bogged down in political arguments, and it can result in the governor or attorney-general of one state suing another to force them to arrest the person in question.
One would describe those as the actions of the prerogative state
It does apply. It’s just that for non-high-profile cases, prosecutors are pretty quick to make a decision to prosecute/not prosecute. Years ago, I was arrested and accused of assault, and I was released mere hours after getting to the police station because the prosecutor’s office thought my self-defence claim was good and decided not to file charges. Generally speaking, this is what happens. You get arrested, taken to the police station or to the local jail, and then the police department refers the case to the prosecutor’s office. Someone at the prosecutor’s office reviews the evidence, and then they decide whether they will file charges. If they file one or more charges, then you’re brought before a judge for a preliminary hearing, usually within 24 hours (depends on state law). At the hearing, you will make a plea of guild or not guilty, then either arrange for a lawyer, or the judge will appoint a public defender to represent you. Then your lawyer can make a demand for a speedy trial and/or make any other submissions to the court in your defence.
If the prosecutor’s office decide not to prosecute, they will instruct the police department to release you. Failing that, someone can make a habeas corpus petition on your behalf and a judge will order your release.
He will still try to argue that, and prosecutors need to come up with real reasons why it doesn’t apply. Defence lawyers are not stupid and they will probably think of a way to argue immunity. Those arguments must be anticipated, researched, and rebutted.
The problem is that he could also probably use a federal immunity defence. The prosecutors need time to plan out a good way to attack this defence. The worst possible outcome would be to file charges now, unprepared, and then the guy gets acquitted at trial which forever bars future state prosecution for that offence, or the case is dismissed because prosecutors failed to present a good argument for why the accused is not immune. Prosecutors have only one chance so they tend to make sure their case is as good as they can get before shooting their shot.
It’s actually very rare for murder trials to be argued over whether the accused killed the person in question. Usually, the argument stems from whether the killing counts as murder or whether the evidence that the accused killed the victim is legally admissible.
This is because defence lawyers often advise their clients to waive their right to a speedy trial, so they can get more time to prepare a defence. If you insist on the right to a speedy trial, then it is usually held in a month.
Legally, the law says “too bad”. American law does not recognise the concept of administrative detention. If someone is a danger to the public, then there must be probable cause to believe they have committed a crime before an arrest warrant can be issued. After they are arrested, they must be charged by prosecutors immediately. Or, at least, this is how the normative state works. There are many exceptions in fields like national security and military law.
The law requires people who are arrested to be charged with a crime or released immediately. So in order to obtain an arrest warrant, prosecutors would need to file a criminal complaint followed by an indictment or an information. The accused could then assert their right to a speedy trial and demand an immediate trial. Depending on local court case loads, this could be scheduled in as little as a week (not typical; usually at least a fortnight up to six weeks).
Edit: A slight correction. An arrest warrant can be applied for without filing a complaint, but judges will require that a complaint or some other charging document be filed expeditiously after the accused is taken into custody. It is not legal to hold someone in jail without charge. Criminal procedure laws are not nationally uniform in the US; it varies by state.
So in a nutshell, once someone is arrested, the prosecutors are required, essentially, to already be ready to press charges and go to court. If they are not, then an early arrest followed by a judge ordering their release for lack of charges would be prejudicial to their case.
Even though England was a republic in name, really it was “more of the same” with the office of Lord Protector as head of state for life with powers similar to the king and the power to appoint his successor.
This reminds me of the Indemnity and Oblivion Act.
After Charles I of England was overthrown and England was declared a republic, the House of Commons seized control of supreme legislative authority and enacted various laws to govern the country without monarchy. The republic collapsed after a decade, and Charles II was crowned king again. Parliament then enacted the Indemnity and Oblivion Act, which nullified all laws passed by the republican parliament, and it even pardoned almost everyone who was convicted of a crime during that time.
Yes, progress is fragile and needs constant defending. This is an important observation you have made.
No, but during the eight years after him, we did get:
Saying they didn’t get “everything done [that] they wanted” is disingenuous to the achievements accomplished and shows a lack of understanding of how progress is made.
Historically, when a party is defeated electorally over and over again, its members either form a new party or they rebel against leadership and the party lurches left or right in the direction of the voters. This happened to the Republican Party after they lost five presidential elections in a row (four of which were won by Franklin Roosevelt). The next Republican president in office was Dwight Eisenhower, who by today’s standards would be a moderate liberal.
You can also see it happen in other countries. After being stuck on the left side of the room for 14 years the British Labour Party elected a… moderate conservative as leader and then subsequently won the next election.
Generally speaking, when a party keeps losing elections over and over again, picking a more extreme candidate is usually catastrophic to their electoral chances—see what happened in Canada and Australia.
Before anyone comments with objections or observations of this dynamic in modern American politics, do note that no party has lost 3 elections in a row in five decades.
I’m pretty sure if that were the case then someone would have blown the whistle on this several years ago. These people employ staffers, many of whom are very ideologically dedicated to the progressive cause, and would not hesitate to become a person familiar with the manner who agreed to an interview on condition of anonymity. In fact, this is probably where 90% of Congress leaks come from.
To be fair, Congress could fix this easily as well: