Every small business that sells online now can be subject to the more than 10,000 different taxing jurisdictions around the country. //

Congress can fix this problem by protecting all businesses that aren’t physically present in a state from that state’s revenue collectors.

Big businesses such as Amazon and Walmart already pay taxes in every state because they have stores and distribution centers all across the country. A physical presence requirement is the most straightforward and commonsense small business protection Congress could adopt. //

Some states are sending out collection notices for “uncollected” taxes from years before the 2018 ruling that overturned previous protections. Small business owners are on the hook for potentially crippling retroactive tax bills. //

Proposals that force sellers to track their sales to the consumer’s destination and comply with laws in other jurisdictions are fundamentally at odds with the principles of local government and American federalism.

The Supreme Court got it right 25 years ago, and it was wrong to second-guess that decision. Congress now must step in.

There’s still no good reason to expand the reach of state taxes beyond their borders. This may seem to level the retail tax playing field, but instead it has created new burdens on America’s most vulnerable businesses and undermined government accountability.

What does it mean to actually know something anyway? //

The phrase actual knowledge turns out to be uncomplicated, after all. In his opinion for the united bench, Samuel Alito explained that the words mean what they say. “Dictionaries are hardly necessary to confirm the point but they do,” Alito wrote dryly.

The term knowledge refers to “familiarity” or “awareness” or “understanding.” Meanwhile, actual indicates this comprehension is “real” or “in existence” as opposed to “constructive” or “possible,” or “presumed.”

He pointed out that in everyday speech actual knowledge might seem like a redundant phrase—either you know something or you don’t. But in the law the “actual” qualifier distinguishes this understanding from an awareness that’s imputed or assumed based on the context. //

In the law as in our daily life, actual knowledge is “direct and clear knowledge,” the opinion explains.

“A plaintiff does not necessarily have actual knowledge…of the information contained in disclosures he receives but does not read or cannot recall reading,” the court held. “To meet [the] actual knowledge requirement the plaintiff must in fact have become aware of that information.”

State legislatures picked up where they left off following an active 2019 on Internet sales tax (IST). States have swiftly moved to adopt laws requiring out of state sellers without a physical presence in their state to collect and remit sales tax in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on South Dakota v. Wayfair. Nearly every state with sales tax has adopted a remote seller law, and 39 jurisdictions (38 states plus Washington, DC) have extended collection requirements to “marketplace facilitators” like eBay.

In states with marketplace facilitator laws, eBay is required to calculate, collect, and remit sales tax on behalf of sellers for items shipped to customers in the state.

Low reliability, high rate of false alarms in denim-matching forensics //

For some time, there have been rumblings about the reliability and quality of commonly used forensic techniques. In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences published a weighty report observing that, apart from nuclear DNA analysis, “no forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source.” //

for now, write Nightingale and Farid, “identification based on denim jeans should be used with extreme caution, if at all.”

United Airlines paid business class travelers $10,000 in travel vouchers each to move from business class to Premium Plus for a Newark to Hawaii flight. //

Travelers involuntarily bumped from US flights can be entitled to compensation if they have confirmed reservations, check in to their flights online, arrive at the departure gate on time -- if their airline can't get them to their destination within one hour of the original flight's arrival time, according to the US Department of Transportation.

Passengers on US domestic flights experiencing a one to two hour delay in their arrival times can receive compensation equal to double the one-way price of their bumped flight -- up to $675.

Domestic passengers experiencing more than a two-hour delay on flights will receive payments of four times the one-way value of their flight -- up to $1,350.

If Sen. Lindsey Graham gets his way, the federal government will launch another attack on online privacy. The South Carolina Republican will ask lawmakers to give Attorney General William Barr and the Department of Justice unchecked access to all of your messaging, file-sharing, and video-sharing…

3. That all Telecommunications Service Providers shall, beginning July 1, 2020,commence and enforce the registration of all new subscribers in accordance with the Amended SIM/RUIM Card Registration Regulations;

4. That a timeframe (Reregistration Window) for the registration of existing subscribers on the networks of Telecommunications Service Providers is hereby established, and shall remain in effect six (6) months beginning July 1, 2020 and ending December 31, 2020.

5. That upon the closure of the Reregistration Window, any existing SIM Card that is not registered in accordance with the Amended SIM Card Registration Regulations shall immediately be deactivated by Telecommunications Service Providers; and that failure to do so, penalties shall be applied in accordance with the Amended SIM Card Registration Regulations.

Judicial activism is when judges and Justices issue rulings diametrically opposed to the Constitution and existing law – because they’d prefer their Leftist ideology be imposed instead.

These judges and Justices aren’t interpreting law – they’re writing law. They should stop attempting to con us, take off the robes – and run for legislatures.

The Leftist-Zeitgeist assertion that there is such a thing as conservative judicial activism – is patently absurd.

Conservative judges practice judicial restraint. As in restrained by the Constitution and existing law. As in government – restrained by the Constitution and existing law.

Conservative jurisprudence – is antithetical to judicial activism.

To warp justice, Leftists warp judicial concepts like Stare Decisis:

“(A) doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions – unless they contravene the ordinary principles of justice.”

Emphasis ours – because Leftists always leave that part out.

It is NOT judicial activism for a conservative court to reverse a terrible precedent from a preceding Leftist court. It is a restoration of judicial restraint – and thereby government restraint. It is Stare Decisis – rightly defined and imposed.

You could sue robocallers for up to $3,000. //

Robolawyer startup DoNotPay is launching a new service called Robo Revenge designed to let you easily sue any US-based company that spams you with robocalls, Vice reports. The service gathers the robocaller’s details and then helps you sue them for as much as $3,000. The service is live now on DoNotPay’s website and in its app.

First, the service puts your number on the Do Not Call Registry, which makes it illegal for companies to plague you with unwanted calls. Then, when you inevitably receive a call, you hand over the virtual credit card details generated by DoNotPay. The credit card transaction then collects the scammer’s contact info which DoNotPay will use to automatically generate demand letters and court filing documents to help you sue the spammer under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). //

The nice thing about Robo Revenge is that it doesn’t require any new legislation or tech solutions to be implemented, it just makes people aware of their existing legal rights. It’s not an entirely automated process (you’ll still have to listen to the pitch and give the burner credit card details to a caller over the phone, after all), but maybe that’s time well spent if you know you could get a check at the end of the process.

Vox senior correspondent Ian Millhiser proclaimed that 'Justice Ginsburg’s feminist legacy teeters on a knife’s edge' because for once she adhered to the text of the law. //

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is about to lose her feminist card. Ironically, it’s for departing from her usual legal schtick to reinforce that what the law says matters, instead of giving authorities license to do whatever the heck they want.

On Monday, Ginsburg reinforced previous assertions that the legal deadline for passing a 1970s and 1980s constitutional amendment to ignore sex distinctions has passed.

“I would like to see a new beginning. I’d like it to start over,” Ginsburg said about the so-called Equal Rights Amendment Monday.” There’s too much controvery about latecomers — Virginia long after the deadline passed — plus a number of states have withdrawn their ratification. So if you count a latecomer on the plus side, how can you disregard states that said, ‘We’ve changed our minds’?” //

Currently a large chunk of federal policy is built on court decisions that have added horrific things to the laws that the people’s representatives never put in there. Massive parts of social and regulation policy belong in this category, such as Roe v. Wade, U.S. v. Chevron, and Obergefell v. Hodges. That makes these policies unstable if jurists with power begin to decide cases based on law rather than politics. And that’s where the Supreme Court is headed right now.

A case in point is none other than Ginsburg’s signature accomplishment: getting the Supreme Court to pretend that the Constitution says anything about the sexes in Reed v. Reed and United States v. Virginia (cases she argued as a lawyer and helped decide as a justice, respectively). If Supreme Court justices start taking the Constitution seriously, like the left fears, they could undo a whole lot of fake laws upon which rest huge sources of leftist power.

That’s why “The fate of Ginsburg’s feminist legacy is uncertain,” Millhiser writes. “…And cases like Virginia and Reed are even less likely to survive if President Trump gets to fill more seats on the Supreme Court.” In other words, Ginsburg’s legacy may be consumed by the very means she used to build it. If that happens, expect the left to take revenge on people who tried yet failed to secure that power — such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg. //

“[N]o amount of swag or hagiography can obscure the fact that, while Ginsburg is responsible for a great number of landmark legal decisions, her legacy may be sorely tarnished by one truly terrible one: refusing to retire when President Barack Obama could have named her replacement,” wrote Mother Jones reporter Stephanie Mencimer in 2018, when Felicity Jones was about to portray the “Notorious RBG” on the silver screen. //

But Ginsburg has already disappointed the left in her final act. And when she’s gone, don’t expect them to hide their rage. It sucks to be part of a revolution unless you somehow manage to be the last one holding the guillotine string.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas faced down a 'high-tech lynching' by the same people who now claim to be America's arbiters of racial justice. //

The documentary shows a few of the slurs prominent people and publications have applied to Thomas that would be furiously lambasted as racist if applied to someone with different philosophical commitments. Apparently racism only matters to the people who control culture if it can be used as a political weapon against their opponents. It is therefore permitted to live and even fed, precisely because it is useful to its keepers, rather than rejected equally by all. //

Thomas’s story doesn’t end there, though, because he is not an asterisk. His monumental body of constitutional scholarship vindicates his mind, and God Almighty vindicates his soul. As a reflection of those graces, perhaps, while he has every reason to be vindictive and bitter, Clarence Thomas has chosen not to be. Instead, he is grateful, effective, and joyful. //

Thomas’s honorable discharge of his duties regardless of the suffering they have brought doesn’t erase the sins committed against him, but it does redeem them. It transforms a stepping stone to glory into a stumbling block of shame. This is the American story. It is Thomas’s story. It can also be yours.

Roberts’ unwillingness to interfere in the proceedings of the trial will undoubtedly infuriate the left, but despite the hysteria, he's absolutely correct. //

Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer prompted Chief Justice Roberts by asking the Justice if he was aware of two instances in which Chief Justice Salmon Chase made tie-breaking votes in the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson in 1868. Johnson’s impeachment was the first in our nation’s history, resulting from frequent clashes between the Republican-controlled Congress and then-President Johnson, who repeatedly vetoed legislation designed to protect newly freed slaves.

Roberts informed Schumer that he was aware of Chief Justice Chase’s voting history, but that he would not be conducting himself in the same manner, should a tie arise.

Chase’s two tie-breaking votes were with regards to a motion to adjourn and a motion to end deliberations. Roberts addressed the significance of these two scenarios by stating, “I do not regard those isolated episodes 150 years ago as sufficient to support a general authority to break ties.”

“If the members of this body, elected by the people and accountable to them, divide equally on a motion, normal rule is that the motion fails. I think it would be inappropriate for me, an unelected official from a different branch of government, to assert the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed,” he explained. //

At the time Roberts made his above statement, it was unclear as to how Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski would vote on the motion to allow more witnesses. Had she voted in favor of the motion (she ultimately did not), the resulting breakdown of votes would have been 50-50, leaving the possibility open for Chief Justice Roberts to step in and “save” the motion by casting a vote in its favor. //

There has been considerable debate over whether the vice president’s role as “President of the Senate” amounts to a violation of the separation of powers doctrine upon which our Constitution is structured. Thus, Roberts is correct in his unwillingness to invite the same confusion into this impeachment trial, especially given the “sole power” accorded to the Senate with regards to trying all impeachments.

The writing is on the wall //

But, in light of all that’s come before, it would be delusional to think that one stay today suffices to remedy the problem. The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of “nationwide,” “universal,” or “cosmic” scope, these orders share the same basic flaw—they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case.

Equitable remedies, like remedies in general, are meant to redress the injuries sustained by a particular plaintiff in a particular lawsuit. When a district court orders the government not to enforce a rule against the plaintiffs in the case before it, the court redresses the injury that gives rise to its jurisdiction in the first place. But when a court goes further than that, ordering the government to take (or not take) some action with respect to those who are strangers to the suit, it is hard to see how the court could still be acting in the judicial role of resolving cases and controversies. Injunctions like these thus raise serious questions about the scope of courts’ equitable powers under Article III. //

It has become increasingly apparent that this Court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions. Rather than spending their time methodically developing arguments and evidence in cases limited to the parties at hand, both sides have been forced to rush from one preliminary injunction hearing to another, leaping from one emergency stay application to the next, each with potentially nationwide stakes, and all based on expedited briefing and little opportunity for the adversarial testing of evidence.

This is not normal. Universal injunctions have little basis in traditional equitable practice. //

The risk of winning conflicting nationwide injunctions is real too. Id., at 462–464. And the stakes are asymmetric. If a single successful challenge is enough to stay the challenged rule across the country, the government’s hope of implementing any new policy could face the long odds of a straight sweep, parlaying a 94- to-0 win in the district courts into a 12-to-0 victory in the courts of appeal. A single loss and the policy goes on ice— possibly for good, or just as possibly for some indeterminate period of time until another court jumps in to grant a stay. And all that can repeat, ad infinitum, until either one side gives up or this Court grants certiorari. What in this gamesmanship and chaos can we be proud of? //

Thomas and Gorsuch have complained long and loud about lower court judges arrogating to themselves the power to decide issues that are not even before their court. As Gorsuch points out, not only was there no one involved here that had suffered actual inconvenience much less injury. The delivery of this scathing dismissal of solitary federal judges deluding themselves that they have power to write orders for the entire nation serves as a warning shot that their patience has run out and that future injunctions will be given short shrift. //

The Supreme Court has become accustomed to lifting these illegal injunctions as soon as they are appealed. The well is being poisoned at Circuit Court level (when a NeverTrump ruling is shot down by the Ninth Circuit, you know you’ve jumped the shark). And a firm Supreme Court ruling that forbids judges from engaging in speculative injunctions that reach outside their courtrooms is on the horizon.

If a legislature ratifies a constitutional amendment, but that amendment does not exist, has the legislature actually done anything?

You’ve heard it asked: if a tree falls in the woods, but no one is there to hear it, does the tree actually make a sound? The Virginia legislature last week offered a variation: if a legislature ratifies a constitutional amendment, but that amendment does not exist, has the legislature actually done anything?

Activists have been trying since the 1920s to make the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which now states that “[e]quality of rights under the law shall not be abridged…on account of sex,” part of the U.S. Constitution. From the beginning, there’s been a vigorous debate about its likely consequences, both intended and unintended, and, more recently, whether federal and state laws, state constitutions, and federal court rulings already provide what the ERA might have.

Congress did not achieve the two-thirds support in both houses that the Constitution requires until March 22, 1972. The resolution it adopted had both a substantive and a procedural part.

The substantive part was the text of the ERA itself. The procedural part required that states ratify it through their legislatures and do so within seven years. Fearing that the necessary 38 states would not do so by the deadline, Congress in 1978 extended it to June 30, 1982. Even ignoring the five states that rescinded their support, the amendment failed.

The Congressional Research Service publishes a massive work titled “The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation.” The last several editions have stated the obvious, that the 1972 ERA “formally died on June 30, 1982.” That’s what an expiration date is for. When the 1972 ERA expired, it was no longer pending before the states. It simply did not exist. //

For one thing, the members of the legislature treated as optional their oath to support and defend the Constitution. The Constitution gives Congress authority to propose amendments, which includes the authority to set a ratification deadline.

Seven amendments already in the Constitution have one. Nearly 60 other resolutions for proposing the ERA, introduced since the early 1970s, have the same deadline. Honoring the oath of office requires that legislators follow the Constitution’s rules, including the process for amending it. //

Parents teach their children that how you play the game is more important than whether you win or lose. Applying that simple truth to government is the meaning of the phrase “the rule of law.” We citizens must follow the rules government sets for us. Shouldn’t government have to follow the rules we set for them in the Constitution?

Whatever the Virginia legislature did by passing that “ratification” resolution, it did not move the 1972 ERA closer to becoming part of the U.S. Constitution. It couldn’t, because the 1972 ERA no longer exists.

H.R. 2474 has passed committee and awaits a floor vote date //

H.R.2474 is a monster. It will tear the economy apart. We are on the brink of losing a freedom that has so far transformed the economic freedoms of this nation. Your representatives may be anointed as those who watch over our rights and interests, but who watches the watchers?

That person would be you.

When designing future projects to meet the requirements of the 2020 Edition of the National Electrical Code (NEC), chances are your electrical rooms, power distribution centers, and substations will grow a bit larger. Why? There was one simple sentence added to Sec. 110.26(C)(2), which states: “…Open equipment doors shall not impede the entry to or egress from the working space…”.

The electrical equipment being referred to in this Section specifically includes any piece of electrical equipment containing “overcurrent devices, switching devices, or control devices” if the equipment is either: (1) rated 1,200A or more and over 1.8 m (6 ft) wide, or (2) the service disconnecting means installed in accordance with Sec. 230.71 where the combined ampere rating is 1,200A or more and over 1.8 m (6 ft) wide.

Even though this requirement was added to Sec. 110.26 (1,000V or less) by way of Sec. 110.30, this change will apply to ALL large electrical equipment meeting the above-mentioned criteria, regardless of the voltage level. This change will most likely result in a substantial increase in the size of most rooms containing large motor control centers or switchgear.

For many years, most Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJs) have categorized most cases where there are two pieces of opposing equipment fronts to be a “Condition 3” situation [either NEC Table 110.26(A)(1) or Table 110.34(A)]. It will be interesting to see if AHJs will now require the requisite 24 in. egress space where opposing equipment doors can be fully opened simultaneously. This condition could occur either where the open doors are directly across from one another or at opposite ends of the working space.

LEGAL QUESTION ANSWERED: The discussion over which people of goodwill may disagree, presented an important legal question for which we had to seek legal redress: whether the 1986 Constitution of the Republic of Liberia permits the Government to us //

Atty. Jalloh, a Liberian-born with American citizenship was denied travel documents by the Liberian embassy in Washington, DC after being told he needed a non-immigrant Liberian visa before he could be permitted to enter Liberia.

Atty. Jalloh took his fight to the high court, arguing that Sections 22.2 of the Alien and Nationality Law which were enacted before the adoption of the 1986 constitution, purports to automatically-deprived Liberian citizens of their citizenship rights if they do certain things such as vote in the elections of a foreign country or join the military of another country. Teage contended that these laws were repealed b Article 95(a) of the 1986 constitution as being inconsistent with the due process clause of Article 20(a). //

The high court ruling was an emphatic statement and major victory for Teage. So, what does it all mean?

In the landmark ruling, the Court opined that Section 22.2 of the Aliens and Nationality Law is in direct conflict with the requirements of Article 20(a) of the Liberian Constitution (1986), which provides in part: ‘No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, security of the person, property, privilege or any other right except as the outcome of a hearing judgment consistent with due process of law…”

The Judges further opined Section 22.2 of the Aliens and Nationality Law provides: “Loss of citizenship under Section 22.1 of this title shall result solely from the performance by a citizen of acts or fulfillment of the conditions specified in such section, and without the institution by the Government of any proceeding to nullify or cancel such citizenship.
They further noted that the Section 22.2 of the Aliens and Nationality Law which was enacted long before the coming into force the 1986 Constitution and being in conflict with Article 20(a) of the 1986 Constitution which was deemed repealed within the contemplation of Article 95(a) of the Constitution as at the time the Constitution came into effect in 1986.

“Wherefore and in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby granted. Section 22.2 of the Aliens and Nationality Law, to the extent that it provides for loss of citizenship solely on account of the performance by a citizenship of acts or fulfillment of the conditions specified in Section 22.1 without the institution by the Government of any proceedings to nullify or cancel citizenship in violation of the due process clause under Article 209(a) of the 1986 Constitution, is hereby null and void without any force and effect of law,” the Judges ruled. //

It does not amount to automatic removal of dual citizenship restrictions. Supporters of dual citizenship need to mobilize and campaign for Proposition 1 in the forthcoming constitutional referendum. Only a constitutional provision can settle the question of dual citizenship and restore the rights of people of Liberian descent who are today citizens of other countries. This ruling, in my view only means that for the government to deny anyone Liberian descent their claimed Liberian citizenship, the decision must follow a due process that proves indeed that the claimant is a citizen of another country.” //

This means if one is accused of having subscribed to another citizenship, you must be taken before a judge and proof of the second citizenship established before you can lose your Liberian citizenship. In the absence of an amendment, this was the best we could get. The constitutional provision prohibiting dual citizenship is still in force. What the amendment seeks to do is to abolish it completely; except that dual citizens won’t be eligible for certain positions in government.”

Cllr. Frank Musah Dean, Current Minister of Justice and one of the lawyers who argued the case before the Supreme Court

There's a serious debate on reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. I am in the process of figuring out what I believe, and this is more a place to put resources and listen to people's comments.

The EFF has written extensively on why it is so important and dismantling it will be catastrophic for the Internet. Danielle Citron disagrees. (There's also this law journal article by Citron and Ben Wittes.) Sarah Jeong's op-ed. Another op-ed. Another paper.

I am reminded of this decade-old quote by Dan Geer. He's addressing Internet service providers:

Hello, Uncle Sam here.

You can charge whatever you like based on the contents of what you are carrying, but you are responsible for that content if it is illegal; inspecting brings with it a responsibility for what you learn.

-or-

You can enjoy common carrier protections at all times, but you can neither inspect nor act on the contents of what you are carrying and can only charge for carriage itself. Bits are bits.

Choose wisely. No refunds or exchanges at this window.

We can revise this choice for the social-media age:

Hi Facebook/Twitter/YouTube/everyone else:

You can build a communications based on inspecting user content and presenting it as you want, but that business model also conveys responsibility for that content.

-or-

You can be a communications service and enjoy the protections of CDA 230, in which case you cannot inspect or control the content you deliver.

Facebook would be an example of the former. WhatsApp would be an example of the latter.

I am honestly undecided about all of this. I want CDA230 to protect things like the commenting section of this blog. But I don't think it should protect dating apps when they are used as a conduit for abuse. And I really don't want society to pay the cost for all the externalities inherent in Facebook's business model.

While the hallowed doctrine of stare decisis—the rule that judges are bound to respect precedent—certainly applies to the lower courts, Supreme Court justices owe fidelity to the Constitution alone, and if their predecessors have construed it erroneously, today’s justices must say so and overturn their decisions.

Bush and Trump also stopped providing the bar association with the names of individuals being considered for nomination. That way, it renders its opinion on potential judges at the same time as everyone else—after nomination.

It’s reasonable to infer that if the ABA’s “not qualified” rating matters, then so does its “well qualified” rating. Well, tell that to Senate Democrats.

This year alone, the Senate has confirmed 13 of Trump’s appeals court nominees, nine of them with “well qualified” bar association ratings. Those nominees, the ones with the highest ratings, received an average of 42 Senate votes against confirmation.

VanDyke’s treatment shows how much the ABA has changed. The lead evaluator contributed to VanDyke’s opponent in a race for the Montana Supreme Court. The letter about his “not qualified” rating painted a disparaging picture, based solely on unidentified “assessments of interviewees” and unattributed “comments.”

That’s exactly what Blumenthal, now a senator, had criticized in 2006 and what actually brought VanDyke to tears during his confirmation hearing on Wednesday.

The Hill ✔@thehill

"It is a fundamental belief of mine that all people are created in the image of God, and they should all be treated with dignity and respect."

WATCH: Judicial nominee Lawrence VanDyke breaks down amid question about attitude towards LGBT people http://hill.cm/RFbQkqm

The American Bar Association long ago gave away its claim to be a nonpolitical association focused on the legal profession. That reputation is not coming back. Nor is any compelling reason to take its ratings seriously.