No, the Fourth Amendment only covers state action; it doesn't address searches by third parties (unless they are being used as agents of the state).
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
"In all criminal prosecutions. .
That introductory clause is important. These detentions aren't criminal prosecutions; they're justified (shakily) premised on "the law of war." Anyhow, my point was merely that there is judicial review in the NDAA detention authorization, and so there does have to be a showing before a court that a person is subject to the detention authority.
There isn't a trial (in the sense of adjudicating guilt or innocence) but there is initial and triennial judicial review of the detention, so it would be rather difficult to imprison random Americans under this authority (unless you're assuming falsification of evidence like birth records, in which case there's not a damn thing that can stop the imprisonment of anyone).
Man, it's a good thing mods don't know any more about this than you do, otherwise you might not be modded insightful.
The only one of those things actually promulgated by the Department of Transportation is a ban on texting by drivers of commercial motor vehicles (such as semis and buses). Bans on texting generally are a state level thing. Bans on using cellphones while driving without a hands free device are a state level thing. There is no ban on using cell phones even with a hands free device (unless a state I'm not aware of has passed one); the NTSB doesn't have rulemaking authority, made a recommendation, and isn't even in DOT (it's independent). There is no ban on GPS displays; NHTSA put out guidance with recommendations, but they lack force of law.
"If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment." - a stupid sentiment, regardless of who said it.
Anyhow, your assertions have been investigated and found to be false.
The real takeaway is "Don't do research that irritates Republicans, or they might conduct partisan witch-hunts devoid of any actual basis."
I'm sure CERN will be thrilled to know that they're disqualified from being scientists.
It's not that it's a university, it's that UVA is an agency of the Commonwealth.
There's no "may be" about it. Regulations have the force of law and can preempt state law.
Regulations promulgated by agencies under the authority delegated to them by Congress have the force of law, including preemptive effects.
Not well known, maybe. OMB is ridiculously significant, especially its subagency, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which has to approve every significant regulation promulgated by an agency within the executive branch hierarchy.
And yet, if those expectations are higher than the function of supply of the item and demand for it, you'll either be stuck without your $10 and nothing to show for it, or you'll adjust your expectations downward to realize some gain.
I imagine you'll see the same kind of sinusoidal price movements for this as you see for other WoW items, with high prices inducing more people to get one and list it on the AH, quickly overwhelming the demand and tanking the price.
It's not illegal. It just means that employees leaving the company in this specific situation are treated as if the employer terminated their employment for the purposes of unemployment insurance, which means the employees get benefits and they are counted when determining the employer's contribution rate.
Indirectly, through unemployment insurance contribution rates. Companies with higher turnover rates pay more into the fund that is used to pay out benefits. Accordingly most (all?) states deny benefits to individuals who "voluntarily" leave their job, though I suspect most use this same definition of "hostile work environment" to catch when an employer tries to push people into quitting rather than firing the employees.
The debt ceiling needed to be moved through to 2013 to prevent another potentially catastrophic game of chicken. It's an issue that's easy to demagogue, with an impact of triggering a larger depression if the ceiling isn't lifted in a timely manner.
No one is projecting trillion dollar deficits indefinitely. The reason the deficit spiked is because revenues plummeted when the economy plummeted, along with comparatively small automatic stabilizers and fiscal stimulus.
I hold some treasuries as part of my retirement, and will continue to do so. The debt of the US has been and remains the safest in the world, notwithstanding the insanity of a few members of Congress.
Finally, our economic situation will only end in disaster if we collectively allow it to do so. We need to bring our revenues and spending into line in the medium-long term, but austerity measures in the short term only make that harder. We need to get the economy moving again, and we need to curb health-care spending in the medium-long term (perhaps with less demagoguery about "death panels"), neither of which will be helped by wasting human capital in the name of fiscal self-flagellation.