Is insider trading one of those preclusive constitutional authorities the Supreme Court was talking about? Or will this fall under an unofficial act?

It's hard to tell since the Supreme Court has said a president is immune from nearly every crime even though the Founding Fathers said the opposite.

Except tuition is basically free for Mexican citizens while the travel and accommodation certainly will not be. This isn't the US where all schools are outrageously expensive.

I don't have to log in to view Reddit content. Never have. In fact, I was just perusing a subreddit two minutes ago without issue.

Tell that to the people who die in Death Valley when they are on a hike.

The thing prohibiting them from doing it is that the constitution doesn't grant them that power.

It also doesn't say they can't do it.

Which part of "people are afraid they might get fired if they don't go along with it" do you not get? You seem to think there is no problem with this, but if this is OK, where does it stop? Is it OK to have the highest sales punch the person with the lowest sales? Can they sexually assault them after they are tied to the chair (and why did they have to be tied to a chair if everyone was on board with this)? Where does this assault you think is OK turn into assault you think is not OK?

Except you are ignoring the fact this is your boss telling you this. Sure, maybe you can say you aren't comfortable with it and nothing happens. Or maybe you say you are uncomfortable with it and the boss looks for a reason to fire you because you "aren't a good fit with the culture". If a group of friends do this, it is good fun. When your boss does it, it is assault and workplace coercion.

I'm sorry what? Where in the world is this a rule? You stop behind the white line, but up at it

You misread OP's comment. They're saying people stop a car length or more behind the white line rather than putting the nose of their car on the white line, and could they not do that.

If data that you own is not personal property, then what is it?

This is like saying the words on a page are not personal property, but the paper is. No court would agree to that.

Personal property is anything you own or have possesion of, including intangibles such as stock or copyrights, that is not attached to land or fixed to real estate. Data on a phone falls within that definition. The phone is a physical item you own. It's your personal property. The data within the phone is also personal property, though intangible.

"He's not under any compulsion to give a password is he? They had the phone, nothing forced the authorities to trust anything he said....they could have tried forensics like they'd do if they had a safe and tried a safecracker to get in if the suspect didn't want to give the combination."

This is the interesting part to me. He definitely could not be compelled to give them his password (legally). So the fact he offered them a password could be covered under freedom of speech. Depending on what was said, lying to the police can be a crime, especially when it could be considered obstruction of justice. Did they just ask for a PIN and he provided a PIN? Did he say the PIN would unlock the device when it would actually wipe it? It could also show he intended to destroy anything on the device, and while they can't prove there was anything incriminating on the device, it could still be considered evidence as it was data for an investigation. There are a lot of different paths I can see this going down.

If it's on your phone, it's personal property. If you don't think it is, kindly explain who owns it.

If these events occur every 27.5 million years, when was the last one? From that we can anticipate the next one and see what happens.

Since the paper is behind a cookie wall, I can't read it, but I don't see anywhere where the previous event is noted.

So, this fixation you have of liberals' asses, you know there is a support group for you. Personally I find your fixation a bit extreme, but if it is what you need to get through the day, then have at it.

No one knows more about gay sex than a white, Christian male.

I know it's marketing speak, but "influcencer" is just another name for shill. These people are trying to get you to buy something.

There are just some people who are too stuck in their ways to ever own an EV.

There are those people who don't want to ask their vehicle for permission before they can drive it. They want to turn the key and go, not be tied to an app or some nebulous company who can disable the vehicle they bought on a whim