Government Diigo

Washington (CNN) -- Alcohol-related car crashes kill about 10,000 people each year in the United States and law enforcement wants more flexibility to determine whether a suspected drunk driver is, indeed, over the limit. But the Supreme Court was clearly divided in oral arguments on Wednesday about whether police can obtain a blood test without a warrant to determine intoxication levels.

I know that in Iowa, if you do not consent to a test(s), it is as if you fail all 3. In our state, it does not take much to arrest someone for drunk driving. If you fail one of the 3, you have to consent to one of the others, or once again, you are arrested for drunk driving. In all honesty, I would be pretty angry if someone wanted to draw my blood. I am first of all, scared of needles, and I am pretty sure I am also Hemophobic. I want to see what the courts rule on this.

if you refuse to take the test its the same as failing the test

University of Iowa journalism professor Lyombe Eko said the court "has given protection to people who are bullied on the Internet, the victims of smears or lies or accusations posted on Facebook and Twitter." People will be able to sue the attacker, but not the company that hosts the site where the statements are posted, he said.

So now you can get sue for saying something rude about some (everyone dose) ? If you don't want people saying mean things to you don't get on that website and don't involve your self with those people ...

I honestly really like this decision. The rights of individual people haven't changed at all. Nontraditional publishers are just granted the same protections as traditional publishers, and this is an important and necessary decision considering the huge rise in popularity of nontraditional publishers. Beth Weier's lawyer said that ASI [the publisher] shouldn't qualify for protection because it "simply did cover art and bound the book and put it on a website." However, e-publishing is now an important part of the publishing industry, and if we accept his reasoning NO publishers qualify for protection, because none of them write the material they publish.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had previously indicated he would not allow a vote as the House likely wouldn't support a ban on assault weapons.

A 53 year old dentist in Iowa fired one of his employees because he feared that he would try to start an affair with the 32 year old.

This is absolutely ridiculous. That poor woman lost her job because she was an 'irresistible attraction'? He'd worked with that woman for 10 years of course they'd formed some sort of relationship, that tends to happen. I just think that being able to fire someone, man or woman, because they're an 'irresistible attraction' is not only humiliating but degrading to that individual. No one should be fired because the way they look can ruin their employers marriage. If it's that big of a problem then that couple needs to go see a professional about their problems, not bring them to the work place.

Gun laws have been back in the media recently due, largely, to the horrific events at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012 which claimed the lives of 20 children and six adults. In response President Obama has just unveiled gun control proposals. In light of this growing focus on gun legislation, some have expressed concern about the possibility of guns being manufactured in the home using 3D-printing technology (also known as "additive manufacturing" or AM).

interesting back and forth regarding free speech

I would blame the media for starting this "conspiracy" in the first place. Once one person makes an assumption based on an event they didn't even witness, and they share it with some sort of media, it explodes into a big "conspiracy" against the government? I really do feel bad for the families who lost their children in such a tragic incident, and I feel even worse that they have to put up with these nonsense hate messages and such from people. It's very disrespectful.

I think the intensity of media coverage of an event such as this can be both good and harmful. When you over expose every detail and interview every last person related to the issue at hand there is bound to be inconsistencies in reporting. However when the media is able to really tell the story of such a tragedy it enlightens the public to some very serious issues. it makes it much easier for legislation to be brought to the table.

I think it is good that Giffords is pushing for gun control because I believe that we need it.

I agree with you, Grayson. The government should make people own a gun safe to store all of their weapons. It is dangerous for guns to be located somewhere where anyone can get their hands on them. Despite that fact, the second amendment gives you the right to own weapons. Although there have been many gun crimes in the United States, lately, you cannot take away that right. Just because some people handle weapons irresponsibly, all people should not be punished for it.

i do like my guns and i dont want the government telling me i cant have them. taking guns away wont stop murders it will just make them happen in a different way

This article really highlights the need for better definitions of firearms. I think the vague definition and vague proposals for gun control laws are inhibiting any reform. Gun owners protest because the proposals are broad, and the people who want reform don't understand firearms enough to write a clear law.

I don't understand why people who use their guns correctly get punished for other people's stupidity.

"The soldiers of the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team have gone to war five times since 9/11, and 84 have been killed - including 13 during their current deployment to Afghanistan. How would the impending budget cuts affect civilians at their post? And what will it all mean for their spouses and family members who work on the base?"

people should get help and not post suicidel comments or videos on social media

A lot of money will be lost if this is followed through with and alot of angry girls under the age of 18

There's nothing wrong with being tan or pale. It indicates nothing other than how much time it appears you spend in the sun. And yes, this will cause businesses to lose money, but as for the girls who want to be tan year-round, there are other options that would probably actually be healthier, such as tanning lotions, bronzer, actually going out in the sun, etc. Or maybe they should work to make tanning beds safer so that the risk of skin cancer decreases. Maybe the tanning salons could work to sell tanning lotions and bronzers and spray tans so that they don't loose as much money.

okay i gave my opinion too Natalie and if your fine with it then okay i just said i wouldn't like it and a lot of girls don't either that's why they tan i was being sarcastic in my comment

This is very scary to think that it is an epidemic.

One of the worst flu's in the history of America

I believe that everyone should try to work it in their schedule to get the shot or nasal spray. It would help them out alot more then not getting anything at all probably even save their lives. But every year people can die from the flu just this year its a little more common then others.

I can agree with being suspicious of believing everything we are spoon fed by the media, but these people who claim Sandy Hook shooting was a pure hoax are insulting the families of victims. Here is another story about the Florida professor who is "not convinced" the shooting happened. http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/01/14/fl-professor-james-tracy-suggests-sandy-hook-shooting-was-a-hoax-could-he-be-fired/

I heard about this right after hearing about two more school shootings happening yesterday. I am starting to get my own conspiracy theory. Although i agree that this was not the way to raise the question on what is really causing all these large scale shooting.

even though there is a chance there was more then one shooter they do not need to harass people who either lost familly from the shooting or helped protect the children like the person who helped them at the end of his driveway

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa - In the wake of the Newton, Conn., school shooting that left 20 children and seven adults dead polls show public support for stricter gun control at a 10-year high. However, gun rights advocates say they will push the Iowa Legislature to expand gun rights and abolish gun-free zones, including schools.

I think that this school isn't doing anything wrong and they have the right to ask people to leave the district who refuse to comply with their rules and regulations.

"In America today, we have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth... One family, the Walton family of Wal-Mart, owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of Americans. "

Someone posted this, but it wasn't possible to comment

First point: I fail to see how denying a single cell the chance to go through mitosis is abortion. It's no more aware than bacteria. Also, the author is referencing the morning-after pill. For some reason there's a lot of confusion about how the morning after pill actually works. It prevents the egg from joining the sperm, or depending on where the woman is in her cycle, prevents the ovaries from releasing eggs. Contrary to what pro-life proponents apparently believe, conception does not happen immediately after having sex. If using the morning-after pill is abortion, we may as well call abstinence abortion. Secondly, "the mandate requires private citizens who are also employers to purchase private goods (health insurance services) with private money from non-government companies." This is clearly written by a sensationalist. What it really means is that a company has to use its own money to provide healthcare. (And everyone seems to be forgetting that employees don't just receive healthcare plans for free). There is a difference between being a private citizen and being an employer. Owning a public company and employing people is about as far from private as you can get. "Requiring private citizens to pay for abortifacients is more akin to requiring the Amish to use their own money to purchase weapons from a private gun dealer or be forced into bankruptcy. Or kind of like forcing anti-pornography legal scholar Catharine MacKinnon to buy pornography for her law students." This is simply ludicrous and shows that the author clearly doesn't understand what a business is. It's a corporation, it employees people, it isn't a private citizen. I will admit that if Hobby Lobby employed only people who were in complete agreement with the beliefs of the owners I would support them in their case. However, the reality is that many of Hobby Lobby's employees don't share the exact same beliefs as the owner. And it would in fact be illegal for Hobby Lobby to choose their employ

ees because of their beliefs. And the last time I checked, in America we don't make people follow certain religions or beliefs. In fact, the law isn't supposed to be based in religion. I know it sounds shocking, but it actually isn't okay to force a religion on people, or to make everyone live in accordance with one belief system, which is exactly what Hobby Lobby, and everyone who argues against this provision in the new health care law, is trying to do. Lastly, the author says repeatedly that this law essentially discriminates against Christians, which is a complete lie. Christians is a broad term. There are Christians who believe in all kinds of birth control and then there are those who think all birth control should be outlawed. There are even Christians who get abortions. So, and this is a message to anyone who writes articles of this kind, stop saying just saying Christians. Tell the truth and call yourself a Fundamentalist. Saying Christians make it seem like the majority of people who believe in Jesus Christ agree with you, and they don't. You're a minority, and you need to accept that. And maybe read a little about how our government works. It's a majority rules system.