Right-Of-Way Application For Construction: Fill & Download for Free

Honestly, I think he feels like he’s a moderate but on this issue, he’s really not. He severely underplays the downside to increased gun control while at the same time ignoring critical facts in favor of the 2nd Amendment.First, he makes the claim that none of the founding fathers thought individual had a right to own weapons. Well, that’s not exactly true. George Mason, who helped author the amendment, said, “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."And then Samuel Adams, wroteAnd that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …Then he makes an assertion that the dominant legal theory was that the 2nd Amendment applies only to the formation of militias. Well, the leading legal treatise author for American leadership at the time was St. George Tucker. He wrote,The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.Now that’s pretty definitive. The English Bill of Rights of 1688 had a limited right to keep and bear arms, but explicitly left open that Parliament could set limits on it. The actual right from 1689 reads,That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;Even a glance would show that there is clearly an expansive right that is being protected and the government barred from infringing upon.Third, I disagree with his view of the 2nd Amendment. He seems to take the position that government has granted the right. However, the text does not support that. It saysA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.The text clearly states that the right already exists and that the government is prevented from infringing upon that right. If it were creating a right, then it would say “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the people shall have the right to keep and bear Arms.” In the original, the Right is recognized as preexisting and protected. In my proposed alternate version, the right is not preexisting to the Constitution and therefore originated with the government.Also, his take that a fundamental right is one that isn’t written down seems suspect. That would transform many of what we consider fundamental rights.The fourth problem I have is with his analysis of Presser v Illinois. That reaffirms United States v Cruikshank which states that the 2nd Amendment is a bar to the federal government, not the state government. It needs to be understood that the Supreme Court held that not all federal rights were applicable against state action. The doctrine became known as “selective incorporation”. Whether you agree or disagree with it (personally I disagree) that is not largely a moot point. The 2nd Amendment was incorporated against the states via the 14th Amendment in Macdonald v Chicago, 561 US 742 (2010). Furthermore, the Presser court held that while the state could under its laws infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear armsthe State cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question our view, prohibit people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this affect.Now, while that grants the state the ability to regulate firearms, it also creates a maximum point tonwhich they may regulate firearm ownership.Fortunately, this case is now largely supersede by Macdonald v Chicago.Fifth, his argument about the Supreme Court changing the 2nd Amendment to something new is suspect. As mentioned above, the founders intended people to be free to keep and bear arms. But more than that, look at the construction of the amendment as it is written:The court was actually restoring the proper reading of the Amendment.The rest of the proposals veers into the territory of AWB. He seems to favor it. The studies indicate that it really did nothing when it came lowering the homicide rate or suicide rate. Banning them now? Why? AR-15 and AK pattern rifles, indeed any type of rifle, are not even the weapon of choice for homicides. They account for about 372 gun murders in 2016. Blunt instruments and knives account for far more.He portrays himself as knowledgeable. If he is, then his piece is deliberately slanted in favor of gun control to the extent that Bloomberg might contribute to his Patreon.

Setting aside the fluidity in modern parlance of the application of the term 'strict constructionist', the most extremely literal reading of the second amendment makes for the broadest applicability. The wording of the opening text regarding the militia does not in any way limit, restrict, confine, or constrain the wording of the second half of the amendment - textually this is patent. The second half of the amendment is even more emphatic about the right enumerated than is the first amendment. The first amendment - strictly constructed - places a limit only on congress's ability to restrain speech, freedom of assembly, religious practices, etc - while in the second amendment it is completely emphatic, with no caveats: the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.It doesn't say 'the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'. And it also doesn't say "congress shall make no law infringing the right to keep and bear arms'.And it definitely does not say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms common to 1787 shall not be infringed".

The distinction has to do with the fact that GST is applicable on either 'goods' or 'services'.Goods are physical things that are movable. Anything that can be touched and can be moved - for example, machines, pens, hair oil etc. These are all goods.Services are intangible things. Anything that somebody does for you in exchange for money - for example, consulting, engineering, stock broking etc.The only thing remaining from the above definition is “immovable property”. That is, things that you can touch but are not movable. Land and buildings are covered under this. Which means, land and buildings are neither goods nor services. Therefore, GST cannot be charged on sale of land or building.The question here is about why GST is charged on a building under construction but is not charged on a completed building. The second aspect should be obvious - a completed building is immovable property, and therefore not covered under GST.Which brings us to a more important question: why should there be a GST on buildings under construction?To understand this, think of a building under construction in this way: a building under construction is not a building. It is a piece of land on which something is being constructed.This means, when you pay for a building under construction, you are essentially paying for two things:A piece of landConstructing something on that piece of landAs far as the first part is concerned, land is immovable property. Therefore, GST cannot be charged on that portion. But what about the second part?Since you are not buying a building already constructed, you are actually paying for constructing the building - this is considered a service. That is, the project developer is constructing something for you and hence he is providing a construction service.This is why, the second part of the contract is covered under GST, because that is a service.Hence, GST is chargeable only on the construction portion, not on the value of land.No, you exclaim!I recently purchased a flat under construction, and I was charged 12% GST on the entire amount. How can you say that GST is not charged on the value of land?Oh but this isn't the right way to look at it.The law says that if you buy a building under construction, they will assume that one-third of the total cost is value of land. And two-thirds is the value of service. And then they charge 18% GST on the two-thirds of the value.This comes out to be 18% of 2/3rd of total value.Or, simply 12% of total value.Hence the confusion.Many people think that buildings under construction are chargeable to GST at 12% GST rate. That's not true.The truth is - buildings under construction are charged only at two-thirds of the value (because one-third is assumed to be land), and 18% GST is charged on the two-thirds value.Hope that clarifies your doubt.